High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff idavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly a Writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly that of the respondent No.4 and 5 in partially demolishing premises No. No.7-1l45 situated in Annaram Village with the help of the SHO, Gummadidala without following any due process of Lavl is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (d), 21and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy. No.26'1l'l (old) now re-numbered as 261191 admeasuring Ac.1-00 including residential premises bearing No.7-1l45' Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sangareddy District without following due process of Law. ;-.? lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner or dispossess the petitioner from the subject land i.e., land in Sy. No.261/1 (old) now re-numbered as 261191 admeasuring Ac.1-00 including residential premises bearing No.7-1l45, Annaram Village, Gummadidala [Vlandal, Sangareddy District without following any due process of Law. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VIJAY B PAROPKARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following : ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.813S of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled under Articl e 226 of ttre Constitution of India seeking the following relief: '...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly that of the respondent Nos.4 arrd 5 in partiatly demolishing premises No.7 -I / 45 situated in Annaram Village with the help of the SHO, Gummadidala without following any due process of Law is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary, iilegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (d), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.261/ 1 (old) now re-numbered as 26119l .admeasuring Ac. 1.OO including residential premises bearing No.7 7 / 45, Annaram Viliage, Gummadida-la Mandal, Sangareddy District, without following due process of law and pass..."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is a landless poor person belonging to below poverty line. Taking into consideration of the same, the respondents have assigned land to an extent of Ac.1.O0 guntas 1n Sy.No.261/91, including residential premises bearing No :7 - I / 45, Annaram Village, Gummadidala i I I j Mandal, Sangareddy District. It is also stated that a final patta certificate has been issued to the petitioner uide proceedings No.BS/ l19l / 23, dated 27 .02.1984 and consequently, entries were made in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as per Section 61 of the Teiangana Land Revenue Act, 1357 Fasli (for short, "the Act"), every occupant has the right to construct or repair godowns/wells and improve land, but requires written permission from the Collector for using agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose, after obtaining necessary written permission from the District Collector concerned. It is further stated by learned counsel that, for the purpose of cultivating the subject land and for using agricultural products, fertilizers and other equipments and storing the same in godowns, the petitioner has constructed a small godown and using the same as residential building unit. It is also contended that, since the said constmction is permissible under Section 6 1 of the Act, the petitioner has made an application seeking for regularization of the same, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 30. 12.20O4. Respondent No.4, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 30.12.2004, has executed conveyance deed uide doc.No.6855 of 2OL6 on 3O.12.2076. Learned counsel further submitted that once the conveyance deed is executed, the respondents do not have arty power or authority to interfere with the peaceful possession of the subject land. Even if the patta conditions are violated, the respondents have to issue notice and follow due process oflaw

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l,3 and 4 has submitted that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner for the purpose of cultivation, whereas, contrary to the patta conditions, the petitioner has constructed the residential unit in the subject property. Therefore, it amounts to violation of the patta conditions. As such, to verifir the nature of the land, they have inspected the land, but they are not interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject propert5r in any manner. It is further contended that if it is found during inspection that. the petitioner has violated aly of the patta conditions, the respondents would initiate appropriate action t , i I I strictly in accordance with law for resuming the land to the Government.

6. Since, it is stated that, as on date the respondents have not initiated. any action to interfere ' wittr the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject iand to an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas in Sy.No.261/91, including reSidentia'l premises bearing N o.7 - I I 45, Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandai, Sangareddy District and dwelling unit, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing . the respondents to fo1low due process of law, if they found any violation of the patta conditions during their inspection.

7. With the above observations, the writ petition 1S disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t/ ' l\'n) SECTIbNb"FFICER \

1. The Principal Secretary, State .of .Telangana' " Secretariat,'State of Telangana' Hyderabad- z. ihe Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminlstratlon - 3. The Coliector, Sangareddy District At lanSare99l;- +. fh" frf,.itaar, Gummadidala lvlandal Gummadldala ;. il; C";;issioner, Gummadidala Municipalitv' G Secretariai, State of Telangana, Hyderabad' . District. Revenue DeveloPment and Urban DeveloPment - 502 313. ummadidala SangareddY C6'J', w \ Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRl. VIJAY B PAROPKART, Advocate. tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 8. Two CCs to cP FOR MUN|C|PAL ADIVTNTSTRATTON AND URBAN DEVELOPIMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 9. One CC to SRl. P.KRISHNA REDDY, SC for Ir/UNtCtpALtTy. [OPUC] 10.Two CD Copies. 1 1 . One Spare Copy. JS GJP :\ ( I -i,-t--j-:\, \r'.- \l ' v;r1,, '(- .:\ t o^)' ..\. XOJUI M / J o L} I /,'t- ) HIGH COURT DATED i 1810312025 ORDER WP.No.8135 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { \