The High Court · 2025

Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Crcurt may be pleased to pass an order, or direction or Writ, in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the respondents 3-5 in not regularising the petitioners land of 195.7 sq yards in H.N. 9-5-271N2, lbrahimbagh, Golconda, Hyderabad and rejecting the appeal by the 3rd respondent through Proceedings No. R11216712016 dated 2710512O16, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of GO Ms. No. 59 of 201 4 daled 3O11212014 as well as GO Ms. No.12 of 2015, dated 3010112015 and consequenfly, set as'nle the order in appeal, and direct the respondents to regularise the above land as per the terms of GO Ms No. 59 of 2014 and GO Ms. No. 12 of 2015 as per the endorsement Lr No. F 1827 t2O1 5 dated 31 /08/20 1 5, in the interest of justice. r.@Fr7 lA NO: I OF 20m Petition under section '151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filetl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent:;3 to 5 to regularise the petitioners land of 195.7 sq yards in H.N. d-S-ZttNZ,tOr^himbagh, Golconda, Hyderabad above land as per the terms of GO Ms No. 59 of 2014 and Go Ms. No.12 of 2015 as per the endorsement Lr No. 1782712015 datr:d 31/08/2015 in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 1'[email protected]?7 ' -1,. - :,": : */) l',., :ir: ,:t:. ',,:r|i .-:: - :'E . ''""''rf i-. ,.,11:; -:1i{f THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL 1 6]TIII-sil This Writ Petition is liled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 3 to 5 in not regularising the petitioner's land admeasuring 195.7 square yards in H.No.9-5-27 IA/2, lbrahimbagh, Golconda, Hyderabad, and the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the 3rd respondent tlrrough proceedings No. RL/2167 l20 16, dated 27.O5.2Ot6, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.S9 dated 3O.L2.2O14 and G.O.Ms.No.l2 dated 30.O 1.20l5; and consequently, to set aside the said order in appeal zrncl clirect the respondents to regularise the said larrd in accordance with the above Government Orders and as per the endorsement in Lr.No.F/827 /2a 15, dared 31.o8.2o15.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing online, submits that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring 195.7 square yards in H.No.9-5 -27 / Al2, lbrahimbagh, Golconda, Hyderabad, for more than 15 years. He has constructed a house over an Page2 of7 extent of 34.11 square yards. Admittedly, the said land is Governnrent land.

3. Wtrile So, the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.r\o.59 dated L6.12.2O14, contemplating the regularization of encroachments on Government land, and proposect to alienate and regularize possession of unobjectionable Government land and surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act, on payment basis, for both residential and non-residential use.

4. [n order to avail the said benefit, the petitioner submitteC an application vide ID No.APLHYD1503O3OOO477 along with the requisite fee. The 5trr respondent, after considering the application, issued an endorsement vide Lr.No.F/t127 12015, dated 31.08.2015, fixing the basic rate at Rs.6,O,)O /- per square yard and directed the petitioner to pay an a:mount of Rs.2,93,550/-, rvhich the petitioner paid through clemand drafts.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner received a further communir:ation from the sth respondent stating that the Page 3 of7 Regularization Committee had decided not to treat the entire extent as residential, and had directed payment of the full basic value for the appurtenant land, amounting to Rs.1O,21,OO5/-. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,27,455f -, after deducting the amount already paid, i.e., Rs-2,93,550/-.

6. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent upheld the order passed by the sth respondent, through proceedings No.Rll2L67 l2016, dated 27.05.2016. Learned counsel submits that the 3'd respondent did not assign an-y reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request.

7. Learned counsel further submits that while G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 16.12.2o14 initially conter4plated charging 5oo/o of the basic value for possession of Government land up to 25O square yards, the same was modified by G.o.Ms.No.12 dated 3o.0l.2ol5, which provided that in the case of Belou, Poverty Line (BPL) families, where the dwelling unit is up to 25O square Yards, the amount Page 4 of7 payable shall be 25o/o of the basic value as on 02.06.2014. He finally prays for indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to direct the sth respondent to regttlarize the petitioner's land in accordarrce with the endorsement vide Lr.No.F/827/2015 dated 31.08.2015, pursuant to u'hich an amount of Rs.2,93,550/- was paid by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.6,OOO/- per square yard, through demand drafts of Rs.75,OO,l/- dated 27 .O2.2OL5, Rs.72,850/ - dated

30.09.20 15, and Rs.72,850/- dated 16.01.20 15.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, fepresenting the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, while reiterating the averrnents made in the counter affidavit, submits that as per Clause (vil of G.O.Ms.N,r.59, Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dated

30. 12.2OI4, where the applicant is in possession of Government land as an extension or appurtenant to a du,elling trnit on land already owned or assigr-red, such possession may be considered for regularization onl-y upon pavment of the full basic value. Accordingl-v, the sth responden I issued a demand notice directing the petitioner Page 5 of7 to pay the said amount. Therefore, no illegality or Fierversity can be attributed to the said demand notice. He further submits that instead of complying with the said payment, the petitioner has approached this Court with the intent to delay the matter, and thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material placed on record before this Court. For the sake of convenience, Clause (vi) of G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assn-l) Department, dated 30.12.20 14, is extracted hereunder: "ui) Possession of gouernment land as extension or appurtenant to a dwellirq unit on land already owned or assigned maA be considered for regularization on WAment of full bqsic uQlue." 1O. The aforesaid clause clearly establishes that possession of Government land as an extension or appurtenant to a dwelling unit on land already ow'ned or assigned may be considered for regularisation upon payment of the full basic value. [n accordance with G.O.Ms.No.59 datecl 30.12.2014 , t Page 6 of7 and the endorsement issued by the sth respondent vide Lr.No. F 1827 l2ot5 dated 31.08.2015, the petitioner depositecl an amount of Rs.2,93,55O/- through demand drafts 1 1. Un<ler these circumstances, since the petitioner has already nrade the payment, this Court deems it appropriate to direct l.he 5th respondent to take necessar)r steps and pass appropriate orders strictly in accord€rnce with law, as expeditiotrsly as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. WithL the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shatl be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellan()ous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed SD/-A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY// OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue) secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State of Telangana. Hyderabad

2. The Distiict Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad 3. The Joint Collector anO AOditional District, Magistrate, Hyderabad District,

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad 5. The Tasildar, Golkonda Manda Hyderabad District , Hyderabad 6. One CC to S;Rl P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies PSK. o HIGH COIJRT DATED :10tOgt2O2S 2 I WP.No.1SOI 2 of ZO2O TS ? I JAil 2026 * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CICSTS