tVekala Kranthi Kuma v. 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 an order, direction or writ one in the nature of Writ of [\Iandamus declaring the action of respondents in occupying the agriculturat land of petitioner inSy.No.710 to an extent of Ac. 3-2O gts., in Thirmanpally Village, lndalwai Mandal, Nizamabad District and laying foundation stone for construction of 33 KVl11 Sub-Station without acquiring and following due process of law as wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 not to construct 33111 KV Sub-Station in the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac. 3-20 gts, in Sy.No. 710 of Thirmanpally Village, lndalwai [/andal, Nizamabad 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 supporl of the petition, the High..Court may be pleased to direct the respondent 3 to 5 not to proceed with the construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station in the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac. 3.20 gts, in Sy.No. 710 of Thirmanpally Village, lndalwai Mandal, Nizamabad in persuance of proceedings issued by 2nd respondent in N.0.0(CE/ Projects Ms.No. 448, dt. 12-11-2024, pending disposal of writ petition lA NO: 2 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 direct the respondents to install the 33/1 1 KV Sub-Station in the available vacant Govt. land to an extent of about AC. 2-00 gts or in Sy.No. 738 or in Sy.No.710 about Ac.6-00 gts near dumping,yard OF Thirmanpally Village, lndalwai lVlandal, Nizamabad District by cancelling proposal from the petitioner's land in Sy.No.710 to an extent of Ac.3-20 gts, pending disposal of W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.,1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: SRI A. CHANDRASHEKAR, SC FOR TRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER r'\ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No.10369 oF 2025 ORDER Petitioner claims to be the absolute o'uvner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Survey No.710, admeasuring Acs.3-2o gts., situated at Thirmanpally village, Nizamabad District. Petitioner has been in possession of the land for 20 years and was allotted the sarne with pattadar pass Book No.22oB46 in

2010. Petitioner also holds an electricity connection No.5137s- o1980 in their narne and regularly pays the electricity charges. on 72-11.2024, Respondent No.2 issued proceedings (N.o.o (cBlProjects) Ms.No.44B, for the erection of a 33lLr KV Sub- Station at Thirmanpally, but the notice did not specify the survey number of the land. In response, petitioner filed suit o.S. No.51 of 2025 before the principal Junior civit Judge court, Nizamabad, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent unauthorized occupation of the tand. After summons were issued to the respondents, respondents 3 to 5, allegedly influenced by local politicians, hastened the sub-station installation. They laid the foundation stone on 03.04.2o2s at 4:3o PM in a rushed manner, with the Local MLA Sri Bhupathi ) NBK,J \\'P 10i69 202i Reddy ofiiciating. This action \,\:as taken to occupy cultivable agricultural land 1n Survey Nio.71O rn'ithor-rt following due process. Hence, this Writ Petition

2. Heard Sri Vanam vishrvanatham, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for EnerSr for respondent No. i and Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing counsel for respond.ent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment for respondent No.9 filed a cournter affidavit stating that the Forest Range Officer, indalwai, informed that the writ petitioner is not in physical possession of survey No.710. He further reported that since the rvrit petitioner belongs to the Backward Class community, he cannot be issued a ROFOR patta, as only the rights of Schecluled Tribe people are regularized under the ROFOR Act. Therefore, the petitioner's request is rejected' The affidavit also enclosed. proceedings dated. 11.O7.2025, wherein paragraph No.8 states as follows: g. The APEX coLlrt in the matter of "East India Hotels Ltd." vs Syndicate Bank reported in 1991 (2) SCAL638 held that in our jurisprudence governed by rule of law even an unauthorized occupant can be ejected only in the manner provided by law. I J NBK.J wP 10169 2025 The High court in the matter of "East India Hotels Ltd." Vs Syndicate Bank reported in rggl (2) scAl63g, under section 6 of the specific Rerief Act, 1963, ciarified that even after the termination or expiry of ricense, a ricense cannot be forcibly evicted without due process of law and they are entitled to seek legal recourse to protest their possession. In this case, during the verification of Revenus Records and local enquiry, it is clearly established beyond doubt that the Pattadar Pass Book & Titre Deed produced by the writ petitioner are not issued from the Tahsil office, Dichpalry no'uv Indalwai since he did not furnish the valid order issued by Tahsildar, Indalwai Respondent No. 4 herein. It is clearly proved that the writ petitioner not in physical possession of the suit land at any time. As such the above directions of the Hon'ble APEX court chnnot be made appticable to this case and as such his plea on this point is rejected.,

4. Learned standing counsel for NpDCL for respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in survey No.7i0 in Thirmanpally Village, Indalwai Mandal, Nizamabad District belongs to the Government and not to the petitioner. It is stated that the fact of non-issuance of a new pattadar pass book in the name of petitioner makes it clear that the said land does not belong to petitioner but is government land. It is stated that the proposal for erection of the new s3l 11 KV sub-station was approved and an amount was sanctioned. Therefore, prayed. this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

5. considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the records, it is evident that petitioner I / ) \ p'i a + NBK.J \\'P I 0_169 20:5 has failed to establish or,r,nership or physical possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.710, Thirmanpally Village, Nizamabad District. It may be noted that the Revenue records and the report ol the Forest Range Officer clearly indicate that the land belongs to the Government and not to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner's request for ROFOR patta is not maintainable as it is restricted to Scheduled Tribe persons, and petitioner belongs to the Backu,ard Class community. It may be further noted that the erection of the 33/ 1 1 KV Sub-Station has been approved by the competent authority, and there is no legal infirmity in the process follow'ed. Therefore, the r,vrit petition is devoid of merits alld is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accord"ingll', the 'uvrit petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Hvderabad IOUTI

1.oneCCtoSRl.VANAMVlSHWANATHAIVl,Advocate[oPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP ioR rr'rrCCV ,rilgn Court for the Statb of Telangana at 3. T"lr;"bt;t 'GF FOn nTVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana' at 4. one CC to SRi'h. cHartrDRA SHEKAR, SC FoR TRANSCS [9PUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] \ To, /o.. ! I t BM \ltt\dr... -'-_ i_:----=:--- -. aai '.,ii1 ; .iriFiI q :i, 22 [tt mi t i:'S; i'r,: i C HIGH COURT DATED:18/0812025 ORDER WP.No.10369 oI 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS R