The High Court · 2026

Petition under A(icle 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd Respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad District, dated May 2023, and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the binding statutory appellate order dated 27.12.1995, and further issue appropriate // directions declaring that the appellate order dated 27.12.1995 passed by the Revenue Divisicnal Officer, Hyderabad, in Appeal Case No. 8/2662/1995, under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, has aftained finality and is binding on the Respondents, and consequently direct the Respondents to give full effect to and implement the said appellate order by quantifying the amount payable and completing .egularisation of the Petitioner's property bearing Municipal No. g- 2-316121A and B, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 833 square meters in Survey No. 129/54 of Shaikpet Village, by adopting the market value prevailing in the year 1975 alone, without reference to present guideline values or any subsequent Government Orders, policies, circulars, executive instructions or administrative gluidelines whatsoever, within such time-bound period as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper, considering the fact that the petitioner is now about 88 ye,ars of age and has been awaiting implementation of the statutory appellate order for nearly three decades i.e. 30 years, and further restrain the Respondents, their officers, subordinates or any persons acting under them from taking any coercive, adverse or prejudicial action whatsoever, including eviction or interference witl" the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, in any manner inconsistent with the appellate order dated 27.12.1995, lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition urder Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,l in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to dispense with ttre filing of the certified copy / original of the endorsement dated May 2023 issue,J by the 2nd Respondent-District collector, Hyderabad District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHD YAKUB ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Gounsel forthe Respondent No.S: SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY Dated: 23.02.2026 Between Sri Mohammed Abdul Gani and another ...PETITIONERS And RESPONDENTS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 - District Collector, Hyderabad District dated May 2023 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the binding statutory appellate order dated 27.L2.1995 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Hyderabad in Appeal Case No.B/26621L995 under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and implement the said appellate order by quantifying the amount payable and completing 2 regularisati')n of the Petitioners property bearing Municipal No'8-2- 3:I6l2tA & B, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad' admeasuring 833squarr:metersinSurveyNo'l2gl54otShaikpetVillageby adopting ttre market value prevailing in the year 1975 alone without reference to present guideline values or any subsequent executive instructions or Government Orders policies circulars administrative guidelines whatsoever'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Assignment' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3. petitioner No.1 is the appellant in Case No 'A,266211995 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad - respondent No'3 and order dated2.T.L2.Lgg5waspassedwherebytheappealwaspartly allowed, The respondent therein - State of Andhra Pradesh was directed to unlock the premises and handover possession f the propert! to the petitioner No.1 subject to filing an undeftaking that he would apply for regularization under the provisions of G.o.Ms.No.5o8 Revenue Department dated 20'10'1995' Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that 4. pursuant to the said order, possession was delivered to the petitiorer No.1 under Proceedings No'D/948/1995 dated ).

22.Ot.lgg6 upon submitting undeftaking in the shape of affidavit, Ex.Ps, stating that he is ready to pay market of the propefi as in the year 1975. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 submitted letter dated 16.02.1996 to the respondent No.4 stating that he is ready to pay the market value of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 27.12.1995. However, as there was no response from the respondent No.3, the petitioner No.1 approached the respondents No.2 to 4 through several representations requesting for regularization as per the order of the respondent No.3 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995. Thereafter, on representation of the petitioner No.1 dated 24.07.2023 to the District Collector - respondent No.2, endorsement bearing No.Rev/12lR166/5hak/0003/2023-R-Sec dated Ni1.05.2023 was issued informing the petitioner No.1 that his request cannot be considered as order dated 30'12.2013 and 10.09.2008 was passed in PIL.No.517 of 2013 directing " State Governments shall not implement or act upon G.O.Ms,No.766 dated 16.02,2008." It is seen from the endorsement that the petitioner No.1 has

5. applied under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 for transfer of right to an extent of 1088 sq. yards in premises No.8-2-316/2A, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, which is subject matter of RDO in Case No.Bl2662lLg95 dated 27 'L2.1995. Further, the matter was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) meeting held on 4

05.10.2013 and on scrutiny, the DLC recommended for 704 sq. yards b;lsing on the registered sale deed No.2039/75 dated 17 .O7 .L975 and the request of the petitioner No.1 for regularization of the rr:maining 384 sq. yards was rejected by noting that it is highly valuable and required for public purpose.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is now aged gB years and there was no delay attributa lle to the petitioner No.1. That since the date of order passed lry the respondent No.3 and subsequent to delivery of possession by the respondent No.4, the petitioner No.1 had been continuor:sly making representations to the authorities for quantifying the regularization charges.

7. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner No.1 had been in lrossession of the property. Earlier the petitioner No.1 was declared encroacher by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D/94{}/1995 dated 22.Oi.tgg4 and on appeat filed by the petitioner No.1 under Section 10 of the A.p. Land Encroachment Act, 19Cr5, the order dated 22.05.1994 was set aside by the respondent No.3 by order dated 27.L2.Lggs in Case No.Bl26C;2/1995. The order has attained finality. The petitioners continue to be in possession of the property. ----1; / t' 5

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that earlier regularization GO's have been superseded by G.O,Ms.Nos.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014. G.O.MS.No.58 deals with regularization to an extent of land up to 125 sq. yards of land. The lands under G.O.Ms.No.S8 are regularized free of cost and \ treated as assignment whereas under G.O.Ms.No.S9 plots above 125 sq. yards will be regularized subject to payment of prescribed fee and on satisfying condition of existence of dwelling unit.

9. Since the matter has been lingering around the Courts and revenue authorities for the past more than three decades and further taking note of the recommendation of the DLC in the year 2013 for an extent of 7O4 sq. yards, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and as to the applicability of G,O.Ms.No.S9 dated 3O.L2.2OL4 or any other G.O. in vogue, the petitioner No.1 is given liberty to submit representation to the respondent No.1 for regularization/implementation of the order of the respondent No.3 dated 27.12.L995. On such representation, being filed, the respondent No.1 shall pass necessary orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs. SD/. M. NAGAMANT TANT REGIS A //TRUE COPY// SECT]ON OFFICER To, Hyderabad - S0OO22, Telangana. Basheerbag h, Hyderabai, _ 5oooo1, reiiiisinl. -- 'ilai_ii',"ysrir"["d:fl el!:-"x,;3:.'fl ?+'"?j,?#:t"sJ,.:*siaxlio?1n., 2. The. Disrrict Collector,, UV.OetqQq{ District, Collectorate Building, S It g f.evqn_uq Divisional Officer,, Hyderabad Division, Office of the Revenue

4. The Tatrsildar,, shaikoet_Mandar, office of the Tahsirdar, shaikpet Mandar, Division at officer, Basheeroagti, l-tiderib;d _lijodoi, t;t";#;. Shaikpet, Hyderabad - 5O0OO8, fe6nail;.' - '-" 5. Lf,u Cornmissioner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,, GHMC Head Office, Tank Bund Road, Hydiriabio-_-SOooOe, r"r"-ndini. - '

6. One CC to Sri Mohd yakub Ali, Advocate tOpUCI 7. One CC to SRt c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to Gp for Assignment, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies TJ tu, HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2310212026 ORDER WP.No.4573 ot 2026 a\, ( $t tfit rut o :i' + /. o o

41..,, - -:tl DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS --1* >(!te .