Hanumakonda Veeraswamy & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Ors.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Yogesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.0.24 in Sy.No.207, Ac.2.05 gts. in Sy.No.467 and Ac.9.34 gts. in Sy.No.476, situated at Gate Karepalle Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property') and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property since the time of their ancestors.

Based on the representation, dated 08.04.2021 submitted by respondent No.5 alleging that certain land transactions had taken place between non-tribals in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1970 (for short the 'LTR Regulations'), respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry in respect of the subject property and having found that the petitioners had contravened Section 3(1) of the LTR Regulations, directed respondent No.4 to take the subject property into Government custody under the cover of panchanama and assign the same to landless poor tribals for agricultural purposes, by removing any person not bound by the decree who may refuse to vacate the property.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which was dismissed. Questioning the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Tribal Welfare Department, which is pending consideration. As the revision has not been taken up, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition apprehending their dispossession from the subject property.

The petitioners and their ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for more than 60 years. The LTR came into force in the State of Telangana with effect from 03.02.1970 and no transaction in respect of the subject property has taken place subsequent thereto. The subject property is a purely private land belonging to different vendors who are all non-tribals.

Based on mere assumptions and presumptions, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have passed the orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners, causing grave prejudice to them.

Under the LTR Regulations, orders of eviction passed by the competent authorities can be implemented only by following the due process of law, including filing an Execution Petition and following the procedure contemplated under C.P.C. In the present case, without filing any Execution Petition for enforcement of the orders, respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not have directed respondent No.4 to take possession of the subject property through a panchanama.

The order for restoration of possession has to be executed like a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil Court. In support of the said contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mamillapalli Chinakoteswara Rao and others v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttagudem Mandal, W.G. District and others^{11.2005 (5) ALD 126}, wherein, it was held that as per Rule 7(4) of the LTR Regulations, the order for restoration of possession passed by the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer or other Officer has to be executed like a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil Court.

Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the subject property without following the due process of law.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on instructions, submits that the respondent-authorities have not taken any steps to evict the petitioners from the subject property till date. It is further submitted that if the respondent-authorities intend to evict the petitioners from the subject property, they will follow the due process of law.

In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioners in any manner without following due process of law.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs.