IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.37519 of 2014 BETWEEN Vedula Srirama Chandra Murthy and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. RAAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Each of the petitioners herein is given separate notices under Section 7 of the Madras Act III of 1905 alleging that each one of them are in possession of 300 sq. yards of Government land in Sy.No.143 of Kothagudem Village and Mandal, Khammam District. Petitioners states that each one of them has given a detailed reply to each of the notices, inter alia, asserting that the land belongs to Sri Panduranga Bhajana Mandir and that their forefathers and at present, the petitioners have been working for generations in the said temple. Petitioners also claim that the said land belong to Endowments Department and the petitioners have built their houses and are residing therein and as such, issuance of notices under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act treating it as Government land is wholly unsustainable.
2. However, the petitioners have given reply to the said notices only on 01.12.2014 and as on today, the fourth respondent has not taken any decision and has not passed any order under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act nor has withdrawn the Section 7 notices.
At this stage, the present writ petition is filed questioning the said notices.
3. Obviously under the Act, the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 7 inviting explanation and after considering the explanation, he has to pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the explanation. It may be that the fourth respondent has issued Section 7 notice on an assumption that land, in question, is a Government land. However, it is for the fourth respondent to verify whether the land is Government land or Endowment land, as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition when the fourth respondent is bound to consider the replies of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the replies given by the petitioners in the light of the observations made hereinabove and then pass appropriate reasoned orders. Obviously, till the fourth respondent passes appropriate orders, petitioners shall not be evicted. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 6, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 08.12.2014. (B/o) DSK