VANAGALA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land of Ac.0-04 gts., in Survey No.928 situated at Chelpur Revenue Village, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District without due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims that her father one Pendyala Veerachary was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts., in Survey No.928 situated at Chelpur Revenue Village, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District. It is submitted that the petitioner's father gifted an extent of Ac.0-10.5 gts., to the petitioner towards 'pasupu kumkuma' and the said land was mutated in the Record of Rights (RoR) on 8/11/1995 in favour of the petitioner as pattedar and possessor. It is submitted that in the year 2006, the Government of Telangana acquired some extent of land in favour of TSGENCO to lay conveyor belt for supply of coal by the Award proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal vide proceedings No.A/B/892/2006 dt.3/10/2006 and according to the Award, no land in Survey No.928 situated at Chelpur Revenue Village, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal and consequently no compensation was paid towards the same. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is reflected as pattedar and possessor, but one Malka Venkataramana, S/o Rajeshwar Rao was paid compensation for Ac.0-00 1/2 gts., of land in Survey No.928. It is submitted that Malka Venkataramana had been alleging that his father had purchased the land from the pattedar, Vangapalli Pulla Rao on simple sale deed dated Nil. It is submitted that the petitioner had made several representations to the revenue authorities and also to TSGENCO officials that neither any award of land acquisition had taken place against the petitioner nor was any compensation paid to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has requested the Revenue and TSGENCO authorities not to interfere with her peaceful possession over the subject land. It is submitted that the Revenue as well as TSGENCO authorities, without giving any reply to the representations of the petitioner, are illegally trying to take physical possession of the land of the petitioner and are threatening her with dire consequences. Challenging the alleged interference by the TSGENCO authorities as well as the Revenue authorities, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S. Mrudula, reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs placed at page 136 of the writ papers to demonstrate that the TSGENCO authorities are trying to interfere with the land of the petitioner in Survey No.928 of Chelpur Revenue Village, Ghanpur Mulugu Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the entries in the RoR dt. 15/2/2018, wherein the petitioner's name is recorded as pattedar as well as possessor of land in Survey No.928/ ... . She has drawn the attention of this Court to page 60 of the writ papers, wherein the land acquisition proceedings in Survey No.928 to an extent of Ac.0-04 gts., and the details of the same are recorded. She submitted that with regard to the petitioner, it is recorded that Ac.0-00 1/2 gts., of land has been acquired, but the same was purchased by Malka Rajeshwar Rao from the pattedar, Vangapalli Pulla Rao, on a simple sale deed, but the date column therein is remaining as blank. Therefore, according to her, the said document cannot be relied upon and the petitioner has not been paid compensation and therefore, the respondents should be restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession over the subject land.