High Court · 2025

5. M. Srinivas Reddy, Agriculture, Rl/o. H. Wanaparthy District. Y:-.Sli.iyj_r-t 199dy, Itp M pedda Laxma Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ Ag.currure, r-vo. H. No- 20-170, Dandugadda corohy, Kothakota' (vand IV), Wanaparthy District. 7 Y:-,!Llyl1-}"d!,v, S/o. I\,4.^Narayan Reddy, aged about 63 years, Occ Agflcurrure, ruo. shivatayam Street, Kothakota (Vand M), Wanapaithy District. 8 M- Nagaraju, 9lo.I, Gopal Reddy, .aged about 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, -- -- -' Rl/o. Dandugadda Cotony, Kothat<ota (V-ana N/), Wanafarthy District-" 9. [Vl. Srinivas _Reddy, S/o. IV. Chandra Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ. A.griculture, Rl/o. H. No. 1 -7t18. Shivatayam femffe Sir"et, Xoinifoir'tV-rnO tVl), Wanaparthy District. 6

10. [Vl. Suresh Kumar Reddy, S/o. M. Gatta Reddv. aoed about 41 vears ocr: A.griculture, R/o. H. No. 1-712, Shivatayam Tempte"SlreJt, koinriotiiV-rnO M), Wanaparthy District. 1.1. M. Bala Krishna, S/o. Agriculture, R/o. H. No Wanaparthy District. Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ !1. ^L^ax1a 19-20, Dandugadda colony, Kothakotd (Vand tV) ...PETITIONERS I ;t AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hydera6ad.

2. The District Collector, Wanaparthy District, Wanaparthy 3. The Revenue Divisronal Officer, Wanaparthy Division, \//anaparthy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kothakota lrrlandal, Wanaparthy District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature oiwrit of [vandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in ssuing the impugned order dated 17-03-2025 vide proceedings No. E/1519 t2024-10 in rejecting the applications of the petitioners submitted for seeking regularization of their individual extents in sy. No. '1 75 total admeasuring 0-30 guntas situated at Kothakota village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, though admittedly the petitioners and their families are in possession and enjoyment of the. above land from the period of Khasra and further though they are eligible for regularization under G.O. Ms. No. 59 for their individual extents, as illegal. unlawful, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondents to regularize the individual extents of the petiticners in sy- No. '175 under G.O. Ir/s. No.59 as they are fully eligible for such regu arization. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the <;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugnecl order dated 17-03- 2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. El151gl2o24-10 including eviction of the petitioners from the possession of the land to an extent oif 0-30 guntas of land in sy. No. 175 at Kothakota village and lrrlandal, Wanaparthy District, pending disposal of main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. M DAMODAR REDDy Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made'the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1O8l8 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to deciare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order, dated 17 .O3.2O25 uide proceedings No. E/ l5l9 /2O24-lO in rejecting the petitioners' applications seeking for regularisation of their land total admeasuring Ac.0.3O guntas in Sy.No. 175, situated at Kothakota Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of naturaljustice.

2. It is stated that the petitioners are in possession and enjo5,66n1 of the land admeasuring Ac.O.3O guntas in Sy.No. 175, situated at Kothakota Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. It is further stated that the names of the petitioners' predecessors have been recorded as possessors as per Khasra Pahani 1954-55. It is further stated that the petitioners have made application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2O 14 seeking for regularisation of the land which is in their possession and when the said application was not considered, they have filed W.P.No.13863 of 2023 before this Court.and uide order, dated 13.O6.2024, this Court directed the- respondents to consicler the said application within a period of 2 wp 1Oli 18 CVBR. J _ 2025 four weeks from the dale of receipt of the sltid ordcr. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 had rejected the petitioners' application without consideling their long possession over the subject land.

3. Considered the submissiolls made by the.earrled counsel for the rcspective parties and with their cotlsent, this writ petition is being disposed o[ at the admission sl:r13e. 4 . Sri H.Somaiah Ezra Sasl-ri, learned Assistlr nt (iovernment Pleadcr for Assignment appearing for the rcs,pondents, has submitted that, in pursuance of the interim or-der passed by this Court in W.P.No.13863 of 2023, respon<lent No.2 had examined the claims of the petitioners and rclected the said application basing on the report submitted by rt::;pondent Nos.3 andr4.

5. A careful examination of the impugned ord':r would reveal that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have conducted an enquiry on the application submitted by the petitioners antl reported as follows:- In the applietl area there is no functional ur'it, onlg sgmbolic sheds structures are there I I I 3 CVBI{, J wp l0li 18 2025

2. Applied H.No.1.OO is not in the records of the Kothakota Municipality and it is fabncated.

3. Electicity bill produced by the applicant uith Seruice No.O712O647O to haue taken electicitA connection in the name of his father Late M.G(ltto Reddy constructed area in encroached Gout. Land but as per the report submitted by the A.E (Etec) Kothakota it is seen that the sa[d electic serulce no. 07120.6470 hos already been giuen to the dutelling house neor Bhauanamma Temple, Kothakota, tuhich is not pertaits to applicant.

4. There is no permission from the concerned local outhoities to the subject land.

5. The Lands under regulari-zalion of the said Sy.No. 175 is Gout land situated abutttng the main road and useful for publtc purposes.

6. The applicant did not produce anA do.umentary euidence to proue his possession. "

6. Frorn the above, this Court is of Lh,e pima facie opinion that respondent No.2, after examining the claims of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014, has rejected the same. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or legal inhrmity in rejecling the petitioners' applica[ion warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioners are having any claim that their ancestors had been in possession of the subject 4 -. CVBR, J Wp l0lll8 2035 propcrty since i954-55, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief, n accordance with law.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Therc shall be no order as to costs

8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions per ding, if any, shall stancl closed SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretar at' State of Telangana at HYderabad'

2. The District Collector, Wanaparthy District' Wanaparthy 3. The Revenue Divisional officer, wanaparthy Dlvision' w anaparthy District 4. The Tahsildar, Kothakota Mandal' Wanaparthy District' 5. One CC to SRl. M DAMODAR REDDY Advocate [OPU.J] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUTI

7. Two CD CoPies 8. One SPare CoPY W KV GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1010412025 { ORDER WP.No.10818 of 2025 R ;r iE S/4 4$. o k o o 10 Jun 6 i t /",. -.1r(tH i -.l DISMISSED OF THE WRIT PETITION \,VITHOUT COSTS .1 ,\ Lq