The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent nos.4&5: -- WRIT PETITION NO:7821 OF 2025 Between: Maloth Balram, S/o Bitcha, age 49 years. Occ Agriculture.' Fl/o Lakyathanda, Bodu Village of Tekulapalli Mandal. Bhadradri Kothagudem District, ...PETITIONER AND I The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Departmert. Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 3 4 The Station House Officer, Tekulapalli Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The Tahsildar, Tekulapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District Somaraju Rajagopal Rao @ Raja Babu,, S/o Venkataramana Rao, age 60 years. Occ Agriculture, Fl/o Regalia Village and Mandal, Bhadradn Kothagudem District.

5. Abbineni Ammaji, W/o Somaraju Rajagopal Rao @ Raja Babu, age 56 years. Occ Agriculture. R/o Regalia Village and Mandal, Bhadradn Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENTS I I i 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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in threatening dispossess the petitioner from her lawful possession at the behest of 3rd and 4th respondent in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.12.08 gts., in Sy. No 30312161lAA situated at Gangaram Revenue Village, Sampath Nagar Tekulapalli Mandal. Bhadradri Kothagudern District, during the pendency of the civil suit bearing O.S.No. 34 o 2025 on the file of the Agent to government (District Collector), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. without any authority or jurisdiction, as being illegal, arbitrary u nconstitutional and violative of Article 2'1 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein not to take coercive steps without following the due process of Law, and to grant lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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 pleased to pass orders directing the respondent Nos. 31d and 4th herein not to dispossess or in any manner interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.12.08 gts., in Sy. No. 303/2/61/AA situated at Gangaram Revenue Village, Sampath Nagar. Tekulapalli Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudern District., pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent nos.4&5: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos.7 7 andT821 of 25 COMMON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order'

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos'1 & 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective pafties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to /s involved and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the owners of various extents of land; and that the of-ficial respondent Nos.2 & 3 are trying to dispossess them from their respective lands at the behest of unofficial respondents in the writ petitions. I I I 2

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that against the interference being caused by the unofficial respondents, they had approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing separate civil suits; that while the said suits are pending consideration, the unofficial respondents, with the help of the official respondents, are trying to dispossess them; and that the said action of the respondents- authorities in involving in civil disputes cannot be held as a valid action.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the 2nd respondent never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners at any point of time nor tried to dispossess them from their subject lands; and that as per the station records, the 2nd respondent did not receive any complaint against the petitioners nor any criminal case is pending against them.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the 3'd respondent would submit that the petitioners are claiming the subject lands on the basis of old pattadar pass books, which have since been abolished on issuance of new pattadar pass books, and thus, the claim of petitioners being the owners of the subject lands basing on the old pattadar pass books, cannot prima faciebe accepted. ( 3 B. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that though the petitioners have made an application for pass book data correction, the same was made without placing on record the paftadar pass books as issued by the Government of Telangana. I I

9. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

10. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and taking note of the fact that the 2nd respondent having categorically stated that the said authority is not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands, and since, the 3'd respondent submits that the petitioners are claiming lands on the basis of old/abolished pattadar pass books and also having not filed the new pattadar pass books issued by the Government of Telangana to establish their right and title over the subject lands, this Court is of the view that in the event of the respondents-authorities initiating any action against the lands being claimed by the petitioners, the authorities shall follow due process of law and take action strictly in accordance with law.

11. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 4 r-

12. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.AMMAJI PUTYREG SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Bodu Police Station, Tekulapalli Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

3. The Tahsildar, Tekulapalli Mandal. Bhadradri Kothagudem District 4. One CC to M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

7. Two CD Copies {$' KKS LS I "\ HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 I COMMON ORDER WP.No.7807 and 7821 of 2025 (. o l trE Sf4 ra 1E APH 2ffi t Dl- ^.Tctif: \ z a .\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS {l- 3 H v\ o