The High Court · 2025

ff i:I::flI;ffi ::IT:J::1.;:i;,:"":tilJil:1"::::j; unio,,u,]l:,'lr"J;[:#J,:::,T:ro in r rrere wirh peacerur possession "no the land t earing sy.no.703/4. admeasuring Ac 5-02 c,. ",,,,,"r-'r" ^:"':"'-:":t siddiper o,.u,.,, *,,n",,"r" #;l;: ;._'.::.":JJ;::,] "J,ff:; ;";;"; : SRI MOHD MO|N AHMED eUADRI Counsel for the petitioner counserf ortheRespondentsNo.lto3,SE[.ft Counsel for the Respondent t,ro.4: w The Court made the following: ORDER fii=lff fl.ffi ;)Ir",f^"[lf ts" F".tr3ffilli,f^.,?gJ,f5 p on beharf of THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.2918 of 2O2O ORDER: The present writ petition is hled by the petitioner under Article 226 of Lhe Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in attcmpting to interfere u'ith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land bearing Survey No.703/A, admeasuring Ac.5-02 Gts., situated at Dubbeda Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District, without following lhe due procedure contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violative of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14,2L aod 3OO-A of the Constitution of I ndia and consequently, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land without following the procedure established by law and to pass such other order or orclers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy and Sri Laxmikanth' learned Page 2 of5 Assistant Govcrnmcnt Pleader appearing on bel i lf ol the learned Government Pleader for Home Sri Mahesh Raje.

3. Thc lrrief facts of the case, as can be se] r from the petition affidavit, are thal the petitioner is the lawful ou'ni r and possessor of lancl bearing No.7O3/A, admeasuring Ac.5.02 - nts., situated at Dubbeda Vjllagt:, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipct District having purchased thr: s:rmc through registered sale deed rearing document No.4302 ot 2O19, daLed 26.04.2019 and his name h: s been mutzrted in the revenue records as per proceedings No.MUT/ . )lt2l00968l2or9 datcd 23.O7.2O19, issued by the Tahsildar, K r -rdapaka Mandal, Sidctipet District:rnd since thc date of purchase thc 1: :titioner and prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioncr, -r s predecessors in title are in p<:aceful possession and enjoyment ol he same u,ithout there being any interruption frorir any corner and br ,ayitlg the taxes to the Government. (a) It is the further case of [he petitioner t]r t, on LO.O2.2O2O, ofhcials of the 3r(r respondent, with police assistir rce, attempted to remove the fencing erected on the subject land, ther: ry interfering with the pctitioner's posscssion and enjoyment of the s rmc. This action, allegedly carrjed out on the instructions from higlrt - officials to clear encroachments on adjacent Government land, was u Ldertaken rvithout issuing any prior notice or following the due process c I larv. l)agc 3 el 5 (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona Jide purchaser of the subject land, having acquired it [rom its original owners, and that his name has been duly mutated in the revenue records. He further contends with regard to the flow of title of the subject land that the petitioner's vendor acquired the land under a registered sale deed No. 1138 of 1992, dated 11'O5'1992, the vendor's vendor purchased it under sale deed No'181O of 1987, dated 06.O7.lgT7 and prior thereto, the originat owner acquired it by virtue of regislered sale deed No. 1492 of 1976, dated 19'O4 1976' The name of each successive owner was duly mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor, and relcvanl pattadar passbooks and title deedswereissued.Thepetitioncrhasalsobeenissuedal-Bcertificate by the 3'd resPondent. (c) In light of the above, learned counsel contends that the attempt by respondent ofhcials to dispossess the petitioner without issuing notice, following due procedurc, or affording an opportunity of hearing, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as well as Articles 14, 2l , and 300-A ol the Constitution of India. It is therefore urged that the respondents be restrained from undertaking such coercive and unlawful action by invoking the jurisdictionofthisHon,lcleCourtunderArticle226ofth,eConstitution. I'agc J of5 !- \-- \

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant (io" rnment Pleaders' ader for Rcvenue appcaring on behalf of the learncd Government Pl and the learned Governmcnt Pleader for Home, r:' ntended that the prayer of the petitioner is based on a complete nl I conception, as no action has becn contemplaled to dispossess the peti ioner. lt is further submitted that none of the oflicials of the responde r t departments have visitecl the site or removed the fencing of the subjet I land. They further contend tliat the petitioner, u'ith an intention to tai:r shelte r under the guise of an order from this Court to legalize his tit t and Lo garner s]'mpathy, has approached this ( rr' over the property irt u'ith false and baseless zrllegations. Stating thus, they seek disnr 'r sal ol thc present writ petition.

5. This Court, having heard the respect t e le:rrned counsel an<'l upon perusing the material zrvailable on rec')r 1, u ithout making any observations on the aspect ol title or possessr( n o1' the petitioner over the schedule property, directs the responderrt i to act strictlY in accordance u'ith larn,, if so warratlted, and to ensil re that any steps tzrken are within the framework of due process. It i ; further made clear that the respondents shall refrain from adopting ar g coercive or high- handed measures against the petitioner, and an1 a )tion, if neccssary, shall bc precedecl by due notice and opportunity t(r t 1e pclit ioner to put lorth their eaQg, in order to safeguard the principle-s ,f narural J u stice-. t'age 5 ol'5

6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/.C,DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State Secretariat. Hyderabad. Telangana,

2. The District Collector, Siddipet District. 3. The Tahsildar, Kondapaka Mandal, Siddipet District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kukunoorpally Police Station, Siddipet District 5. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI, Advocate. IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies. BSK ?t- PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 ORDER WP.No.2918 of 2020 r.lr'.i,. J 3 r:i, z{ffi //: ,,, j i. i? \ -.r '(,-,- \i' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS IA t \( \\ Lf