1 D. Mallaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tfre itfiOavit filed therewith' the High Court may.. be pleased to issue an order o|. ai[lti"n more particularlv one in the nature of writ of mandmus or any othercppi"piiri" *iit Jeclarlng the action of the respondent.No' 2 authority in threatening to-ii.fo..".. the-petitioners from their agricultural land ;d*;r;r;.g n". o.rz u st ii sv t'to, xi#q ana Ac 0'04 1/2 gts in sv No' ig+i+, Strri"O at Mogilip;i vlttug", Mallapur Mandal' Jagtial District' without ;;;"il";i;; the explan-ation .ro,iit"o bv them' dated 02-01-2025' the pattadar pr;ooorJ.r, titte books pLceJ uy tnem ano without giving any opportunity of it'em is notning-,Jarbitrary, illegal'.null and void and violative of ;;;;-6 pii""ipl". or Natural .lusticE anJ also viotative of Articles 14.21.and 300-4 of the constitutionoflndia.ConsequentlydirecttherespondentNo.2authoritynotto dispossess the petitioners iro, il]"ir agricultural land of an extent Ac. O.17 112 gls in Sv No. 39414 and Ac. 0.04 1/2 g"ts in sy. No. 394/4, situated at Mogilipet i'e; vir'IJ",'iirr'rprt'rtrl"ori, Lrgtial DistrLt, without following due process of ;;;;;ih;*;pondent No. i-auihority considers the.explanation submitted by the ;;iit;;;" and atso oo"rrn".,t. ptut"o uy them, by giving due opportunitv of hearing to them .law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde'r section 151 cpc praying that in the circums,:ances stated in the affidavit filed in s Lrpport of the petition, tnu"uigh-c"urt may be pterseo io Jriect the respondent N. 2 authority not to dispoJsess tne petitiorrers from their agricultural land of an extentAc 0.17 1/2 gts in Sy. No. 39414 and n.. o.o+ ili gt. in Sv. No 394/4 situated at Mogiripet viitage, nrrirrp* v"Jri, i"giirr-ii.l/,"t, unless the respondr:nt No. 2 authority consid-ers the expranation ruriiti"o ov tn" petitioners and als;, documents plated by them, by giving due " "pp"rtrri,'"f hearing to them Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. y NEELAKANTA REDDY Counsel for the Res;pondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the f,cllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO .430 0F 2025 ORDER This writ petition is filed with the following relief:- "...fo issue an order or direction more particularlg one in the tatlffe of u.)it of Mandcmus or ang other approprtate Loit-declarlng the actiin of Rispondent No 2 authoritA in threqtening to dispossess the petitioiers fiom their agicuttural land <ttlmeqsuing Ac'O 17 % gts., in sg.No.iO4/4 and Ac-o.04 % gts , in Sy'No'394/ 4, situated ot "uojrLip"i Viltage, MaL\apur Mandql, Jagtial Distict, uithout coisti.Ang te explanatrcn submitted bg them,dated 02 01 2025' the pattadlor passbooks cum titte books placed bg them and tf ithout giuing ang opportunitg oJ heaing to them ts nothing but arbitrary' itt"git, "itt and. void ctnd uiolatiue of pincipLes of Natural 'hlstice oni rdto uiolatiue of ArticLes 14, 21 anci 300'A of the Constitution of lndio. ConsequentlA direct the respondent No 2 quthoritA not to dispossess the petiioners from their agriculturaL Land of an extent of ec.O.lZ U gts., in Sg.No.394/ 4 ancl Ac.0.O4 % gts in SA No 394/4' situqted al Mogilipit Village, Mallapur MandoL Jogtial Distict' without followiig d.u. pro"""t of Latu i e', unless tlrc respondent - .or',t,,r"rt the explanation submitted bA the No.2 aithoitg pettioners and also documents ptaced bg them, bg -glwng opportunitlJ of heaing to them, ancl poss such other orcler or orders ii tnit Uon;At" Coutl maa deem fit ctnd proper in the interest oJ justice".

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. It is stated that petitioner No l is the owner and possessor of 3. the agricultural land admeasuring Ac O '2212 gts', in Survey No.394, situated at Mogilipet Village of Mallapur Mandal, Jagtial District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed document No.81/ 1978, clated 1O.O1.1978 [t is further stated that 2 CVBR, J \rp 430 2025 the petir io - cr and his family apart from the abor.c said land, purchasird various extents of the agricultural land r; in Survey No.394 an,l its Sub-divisions and respondent No.2 issrred pattadar passbooks ir their favour. It is stated that the total extent of Survey No.:ir4 is Acs.3o.oo gts., ancr out of thc same, 1n extent of Acs.2.00 g:s., belongs to the Government, which is under cultivatior-r try the farmers. it is further stated rhat the respondent authorities '"ithout specifying the boundaries ancl u,it hout giving any detairs ol- the encroachment of the petitionel. over the land, stating Lhal rhe petitioners har.e encroached an r:xLcnI of Ac.2.OO gts., formirri part of the Survey No.394, ther. are frequcntly rnterfering u ith the possession of the pctilioner.s and also respondenr |b.2 issued notices dated 19. 72.2024 under. Section 7 of the Telang: rra Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for shor.t ,the to them. It rs; t;tated that soon after the receipt of saicl notices, the petitioners l- ave submitted explanation on 02.O1 .2025, duly enclosing all ,he documents in support of their claim as pattadars of the lands; in liurvey No.394 and its Sub_division numbc.rs. ActJ

4. The gri:r.ance of the petitioners is that the re.spondent authorities u.ithout taking into consideration ol the explanation and withour cassing any orders as per the provisions or. the Act, are frequer: tl1- interfering with their possession ancl causing r ,l i' I t 3 CVB& J w_430]025 inconvenience for the enjoyment over the land and also not allowing them to cultivate the subject land. l,earned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue 5. appearing for the respondents has not disputed the issualce of notices under Section 7 cf thle Act uide beaing No'Bl32ll2O24, d.ated 19.12.2024.

6. This writ petition is filed assailing the validity of show cause notices issued under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act' Since it is stated that the petitioners have already fi1ed the explanations duly enclosing all the documents, ends of justice would be met, if the respondents are directed to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners dated o2'ol '2025 aIj,d also the documents enclosed in support of the explanations/ representations and pass a reasoned order ald communicate the same to the petitioners. TilI such time, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in any malner and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from today' 7 The writ is accordingly disposed of. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of No order as to costs. l l 4 CVBR, J \\ p_430 _2025 As a st:quel,.the miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To, I The Princip;al llecretary to the Revenue Department, Secreta'iat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Tahsilderr, Mallapur lVlandal, Mallapur, Jagtial District. One CC kr fiFll. Y NEELAKANTA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to t3P FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. Two CD C.o cies 2 J 4 5 KKS BS HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.430 of 2025 / :''".,1 2M (f' t' C) I I \ 'i. : ''.itcH eO * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS q /,t */s/zt I