MGY Constructions v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of 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, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in case File No.B/14312024 of respondent No.4 dated 21 .02.2025 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with petitioner rights over the land to an extent of 108758.36 Sq.Mts in Sy. No. 1711 al Pigilipur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notice No.8,114312024 of respondent No.4 dated 21 .02.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MIT PETITION No.5939 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the foliowing relief: '...1o issue a Wit, order or direction, one more particularlg in tte nature of a "wrtt of Certtorari" calling for the records in case File No.B/ 143/2024 of respondent No.4 dated 21.02.2025 and set aside the same and conseq.Lently dtrect the 4tb respondent not to interkre with petitioner ights ouer the land to an extent of 108758.36 Sq. Mts in SA.No.L7/ 1 at Hgtlipur Villoge, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems f.t and proper in the circumstances of the case. . . .'

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.21-35 gts situated at Sy.No. 17/ 1, situated at Pigilipur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.l27 12023 dated O4.O2.2O23, L3312023 dated

07.O2.2023, 1316l2022 dated 03.11.2022, 19512023 dated

22.02.2023 and 1119/2023 dated 20.10.2023. It is further stated one Samyuktha Reddy was the owner of land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in the same survey number, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.6547 and 654a /2OO7 dated 21.O5.20O7 and after his demise, his son Vamshi Krishna 2 Reddy succeeded the properry. Similarly, K. Satish Reddy and Rajini also purchased land admeasuring Ac. 1_OO gts each 1n the same survey number, under registered sale deed bearing document No.6547/2OO7 dated 21.05.2OO7. It is further stated that the petitioner along with Vamshi Krishna Reddy, K. Satish Reddy and Rajini came to an understanding to develop the land jointly into layout plots and in pursuance of tJle same, they applied for layout permrssion from Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and they also got surveyed the subject land. It is stated that the HMDA after obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authorities granted layout permission to the pedtioner to the extent of 1Og75g.36 sq.metres in Sy.No. 17/ I situated at pigilipur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that the petitioner also obtained permission from the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TS RERA) and constructed compound wall in respect of subject land and started developing the same as per the permission. However, the respondent No.4 disputing the nature and classification ofthe subject land, has issued Notice d,ated, 72.02.2025 vide No.B/14312024 urtder Section 7 of the l,and Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "Act, 1905,) alleging that the petitioner ald others are in unauthorized occupation of the Gif,vemment land, called upon to show cause as to why assessment and pena-lty should not be levied for unauthorized occupation of the I I -) land under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 1905. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed expianation/rep1y dated 19-02- 2025 to the said notice, but the respondent No.4 without considering the same and without applying his mind, has mechanically issued the impugned notice/ Final Order dated 2l .O2.2O25 vide No.B I 14312024 under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 directing the petitioner and others to vacate from the subject land within three(3) days from the date of service of notice, failing which they would be summarily evicted from the subject land. Hence the writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions of Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C.Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

4. A careful perusal of the show cause notice dated 72.02.2025 vide No.B/ 14312024 issued by the respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 reveals that the respondent No.4 alleging that the petitioner and others are in unauthorized occupation of the Government land vested under Section 24 of Telangana State (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1371 Fasli, called upon to show cause as to why assessment and penalty should not be levied for unauthorized occupation under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 1905. In response, the petitioner 'l 4 submitted a detailed expranation on 19.o2.2025, encrosing rerevant documents, including registered sale deeds, pattadar passbooks, conversion proceedings, layout permissions, a survey report, and other supporting records. However, without making any reference to the documents enclosed to the explanation dated lg .O2.2025 submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 21 .O2.2O25 vide No.B/ 143 I 2024 under Section 6 of the Act, 19OS directing ttre petitioner and others to vacate the subject land within three days from the date of service, failing which they would be summarily evicted. In the schedule appended to the impugned notice, it is mentioned that out of the total land admeasuring Ac. 116-1O gts, an extent of Ac.26_OO gts in Sy.Nos. 17 /2 and 17 / 3 of piglipur Village is classihed as ceiling surplus iand. Further, the notice directed the Additionar Mandal Girdawar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, to execute the eviction, take possession of land, buildings, and other constructions, and retain them in Government custody until further orders from the respondent No.2-District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The key issues that require adjudication before issuing a notice under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, are: What is the total rakba mentioned in the survey number? What extent of land was surrendered by the declarant under the Telangana Land ) Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973? What extent of land was purchased through registered sale deeds? Is there any dispute regarding the overlapping of surplus land and the tand retained by the pattadar?

6. In the impugned notice/Final Order dated 2L.O2.2025 issued by the respondent No.4, there is no reference of show cause notice dated, 12.02.2025 or the explanation dated, 79.O2.2025 submitted by the petitioner. The principles of natural justice mandate that a person affected by an adverse order must be afforded a reasonable opportunit5r to present their case. In the present case, the respondent No.4 issued impugned notice without applying his mind, without assigning valid reasons, and in a manner not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned notice/Final Order dated 21.02.2025- issued by the respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned notice/Final Order dated 21.O2.2O25 vide No.B/ 143/2O24 issued by the respondent No.4 is set aside. The Respondent No.4 is directed to conduct a de nouo inquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as any other interested persons ciaiming rights over the subject lands and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the 6 - petitioner along with supporting documents, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents shall not ta1<e any coercive steps in respect of the subject land'

8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy, submitted that it has become practice for the revenue authorities to issue eviction orders giving short notice of just two or three days and forcibly evicting the persons who are in occupation, without affording an opportunity to avail the remedy of appeal under the statute' Such action on the part of the authorities amounts to violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Since an aggrieved party is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal within the time prescribed for irling an appeal, the authorities are directed not to take any coercive action till the expiry of appeal period. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 o 7 SA BS k The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division, Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildar Cum Sub Registrar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies C.C. TODAY ( a< :) () 1 E S{A i6 2i FEB E6 t Olspot -,- '( '2 z o I I HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER WP.No.5939 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 10 cefl"D h. J6a