High Court · 2025

'lB. S Sai Tela S/c,. S.Vishwa Prakash, aged about 23 year:: r)cc Student, R/o.H.No.6-18 I'larsimha Reddy Road, Shamshabad, Ranga Rt,rddy District. 'l9.G.Swapna Wic.3.Sridhar Reddy, aged about 42 years Or,c. Employee, R/o.H.No 2-333/1, Bheemarain, Block- 1 , Hasanparthi tr\4an,lal, Warahgal District. 20 B.Kapoor Nayak, S/o.Sri B.Ranja Nayak, aged about 42 years, Occ. Employee, R,to.l-l.No.'1-68, Morrpoor Bandankal, Karimnagar 21 J Tirupathr. S/o. J Rajaiah, aged about 34 years, Occ Busirer,s, R/o.Ranga Sai Pally, Rama(l,rgu, Karimnagar District.

22. lM Venkat Redc y,, S/o tM.ChokKa Reddy, aged about il7 Employee, R/o. FI. No.4-25, Mallapur, Dharmapuram. Karimnaqar 23. J.Mahender, Skr J.Rajaiah, aged about 37 years, Oc< R/o Ranga Sai Pally, Ramadugu, Karimnagar District. ears, Occ. istrict. Y D Employee.

24.K. Hari Prasad, S/o K.Radha Kishan, aged aboul 42 years;, Or.;c. Employee, R/o.H No 3-1 17't Christian Colony, Karimnagar. 25. Smt.Patan Fathinrunnisa, Wo.P.Althafa Khan, a Employee. R/o.ll No.7-3-1 81 and 7-4-21411 , Kas District. ed about 51:: years, Occ. meer Garldrr, Karimnagar s h

26. Kum. Kattekola Sravanthi, D/o. K.Bliagavan, aged aboul 30 Employee, R/o C,r.No.T2-1323, 8 lncline Colony, Godavarik h ani District. years, OcQ Ka rim nagar.

27. Smt.Gottumukku er Sunttha, Wo.G.Komal Reddy, aged about 3 / years, Occ Employee, R/o.H No.8-4-721, Tirumala Nagar, Karimnagar

28.Ankilla l-axma fieddy, S/o.A.Krishna Reddy, aged about 64 years, Occ Employee, R/o H lrlo.'1 1-2-60, Shivaji Nagar, Siddipet, Medak Dis;tiict.

29. Padma Chinna Elakkappa, S/o.Padma Durgaiah, aged aboul 5r.) years, Occ Employee, Rlo H No.14-123, Ramayampet, Medak Districl

30.A.Salhyanarayana, S/o. Padma Durgaiah, aged about .t7 years, Occ Employee, R/o.H l,lo.3-44, Pothgal, Karimnagar District

31. Smt.Soma Ramarrjula, Wo.Soma Srinivas Rao, aged aboul 4i: years, Occ. Housewife. R/o.F \o.1- 1, Shiva Nagar, Jinnaram, Mledak Dist 32 Buddarapq Kish: rr S/o.B.Rangaiah, aged about 52 years )cr;. Employee, R/o H.No T-2-97 ft lncline Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnaga-D strict. 33 Smt Gandhan Aritha, Wo.G.Sreekanth Reddy, aged abor-rt 3g years, Occ. House Wife R/o il No.12-1-82, Mohinpura, Sidijipei, lrledak Drstriit. 34 Mada Srinrvas ttlgOV, S/o.Dharam Reddy, aged about /[6 years, Occ. Ennployee, R/o. H No. 1 5/1, Saraswathi Nagdr, Lolhkunta, Secunl'erabad. 35 Smt Puli ltrlanlula Wo Puli Prem Kumar Reddy, aged about 3S years, Occ. House Wrfe, R/o tl No 1-6-212t651107 /30, GpHS Cotony, HyCeratrad. 36 S Santosh_ Kumar, S/o S. Sukhsena, aged about 35 years, Occ. Business. T/o_ H.No 2-3-34il'111, Near Hoty F5itn Schooi- ki"-ril""'iiirJ""tr;;i; Bollarum, Secunderabad. 37.Pogula Prathap Reddy. _SJo_p !_argyana, aged about 46 years, Occ. Emproyee. R/o.H.No C-i1-5/6, HWp cotony, asi,.rapuram, Kham#a. tii"tiiit. 38 Smt D.Vin-orb Wo.D.Srinivas Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ. House Wjfe, """' R/o.H.No 2-35, Rangaraopaily, canjionlra ff,frrair, furimi,Jg* oiii,i"t 39. K.Devende_r Reddy, S/o.Jalapailli Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, Rio.Lygaiamarri, pecidapaili, xiiirj.nidai oistrict.

40.Smt-Ramarangula Vasantha, Wo.R.Krishita, Business, R/o.H.No.3-49150/3, p.No.25, Secunderabad. aged about 38 vears, Occ. Kadari Enclave, Old Alwal, AND ...PETITIONERS

1. State of Telanoana. renreserrted by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secietariat airitoings, t-1vJ6, "6i0'' The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Matkajgiri Division, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. "-''" The Tahsildbr, Alwal Mandal, lvtedchal-Malkajgiri Diskict at Atwat The Assistant Director, survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy Drstrict ar Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. Mandal G-ir.dvarAr,/RO, Alwal, Office of the Tahsildar, Medchal_Malkajgiri District at Alwal. Joint .Sub-Registrar,-1, RO, Hyderabad, Office of the District Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad T.S. 2 3 4 5 6 / ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF I,TANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No.BtB7Zl2O16 dated 1910612019 of the 4th Respondent treating the land covered by Tholla Kharkana (old sy.No.3B0) of Alwal Viilage and Mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri District as Government land as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, non application of mind and vitiated by perversity as well as opposed to Article 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the Proceedings No.Blg7zl2o16 dated 19/06/2019 of the 4th Respondent and further direct the Respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners plots (details of the Plots arc mentioned in the Tabular Form filed as Annexure to the writ petition) covered by the land described as Tholla Karkhana (old sy.No.3B0) of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. IA NO: 1 oF 2019 Petrtion under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circ;umr;tances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rn,y be preased to suspend the Proce3dings No.BtB7712016 dated 1gto6t2o1g of the 4th Respondent herern, pr_,rding disposal of the above Writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 201 I Between: Deparrmenr, Secietariat eIirdi"gi, Hvjdr.uil]0 " 1 . State of felanoana, represenled by its principal Secrettrry, Revenue 2. The District Collerr:tor, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara. 3. The Revenue Secunderabad. Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Divisron, Sainikpun,

4. The Tahsildar. Atrrvat I\4andal, lvledchal_Malkajgiri District at hhval 5 The Assrstant Dift)ctor. Survey and Land Records, Ranga Frecrdy District at u Atwat, Office of the Tahsitdar, t\4eddrat_Matkajeiri Narayanaguda, F l,derabad. [l,t[]*l,r,?rdvarr,./Ro ' *?i:l ,iff;[?';:'l;!r' Ro' Hvderabad' orrice or the District R,3sistrar, Red AND ...PETITIONERS/RES PONDENTS 1 Srnt.Buyp Banoth Wo .,amslng!. aged about 3g years_ C,cc Enrployee, aged about R/o H No 1 5 462 t. Suryanagdr"dor"ivloro-Xlii,"i"sJct,noeraoai_to l.Sh^anfar S/o - Banaiah, R/o Or No.D-565 {)th plot District. Smt.Tirartdas Rarr:shwari .Wo T.Ani! Kumar, aged about lS years, Occ !Ei?io",.Hl"o u,r.," H r{o.ri_s_6'6aribz,'""s"Hr"lrapuran parsisutta, 55 yea rs, Occ. Post Godavarikha,tr, Employee, Karimnagar Gandhinagar, J R/o H No 1 38 Ch,:.:tapur. Bejjanki f,,l'anA"ai,

4. Maryala Niharika, \V/o .Deepak Kumar. aged about 34 years;, )cc Wife, R/o H.No 8-2f /1 Husnabad,. Karimna!ar Dist. 5 Kopparapu Raru S/: Sri K Bal ng.a.O.V ,gg{ aboul 42years Ccc Emplovee. 6. D.Jamuna, W/o Late Upender.Reddy,_ aged about 37 years. Occ. Employee, 7. D.Srinivas Redctv. S;/o Srj Reddy, aged about 42 years, ()ccuoation 8. M.Srrnivas Red(iv. S;io lVl Ventat Reddy, aged about 42 years , ( )ccupation R/o H No 8-3-543/1 Bh;gath N"g;i'K;rY;;rd"' Emptoyee R/o Fli 20 r"0 zi, "xi.*,ii#,ilrr;;;r, Hyderab;rd Agricutrure, R/o H r\l() 9_68/1 Mr;j;b-rd itr?Ir'irll oi.ti.t.t -Xrii.nagar District ^L1ng9 House I K.Prasad, S/o.Late Sri Employee, R/o.H.No.2- h',;:,'EH"ilil,i??1,3?ilhuj"#,iiXli;,?ilS""Jli Nagar, Secunderabad

10. D.Laxmipathi, S/o.D.Mallesham, _aged about 52 years, Occ. Employee, R/o H No T2-32, 8 Inctine Co6;i d;;siijr'r,"rinrnagar District. 'I 1 J.uvvadi Surya Rao, S/o.J.Rama Rao, aqed about. R7; Hii"-i-6ibiil, F,ir.,", Baraiah Nas5r, ord Ar*rl:J"Tl;o.". E,orov"u, '12. Smt.Akakila Aruna W/oAMadhgsudhana Reddy, aged about 52 Vears. Occ Emproyee, R/o.H No i3_7211, D;;;ili icit:a &.il;"i;;i;di-il#;, Adilabad District. 13. Kanthala Kishan Redrty,^fr,M.rll" Reddy, aged about S1 years, Occ [llfl3l"" R/o.H.No rz_'r'230,-6'i;;i,;'c;j6nvlt1"o,,,r.tnanai, Karimnasar Pflr,", ,fha.n!g1, S/o Sri Eshwaraiah, aged abouti.42 years, Occ. Business H/o. H. No.4-'102, Gurjakunta Block 34, L;heryala Mandal, Warangal Dislrict. 14

15. M.Satyanarayana Reddy, tmptoyee, R/o.H.No. i_ Hyderabad-37. Reddy, aged about 44 years, Occ ^9lg,9f,.qL.l1, 9-1113t19tA, Day'anaid Nagar, fidy;;JS;;

16. Perati Ram Employee, District. S/o,p Mutha Reddy, ^Fu.99y, R/o.H.No.9-5-250, Vittat Nig'ar, aged aboLrt 57 Godavarikhani, years, Qcc. Karimnagar 17 D Kishan Reddv. S/o Q.^Dlrqlm_a Reddy. aged about 60 years, Occ Emptoyee, Rto H No r _so-Bi7r, Frasi;;i, riBir"r", Khanajisuda, Subhash Nagar, Trimulgherry, Secundera6ad-- -''-' -""'-'' l8.S.Sai Teia, S/o.S.Vishwa praka_sh, aged about 23 years, Occ. Student. R/o H No 6_18, Narsimha neoav nojo, Br,ir;n"riLi, nfis;h;& DiJil;:,. 19. G Swapna-. Wo.G.Sridhar Reddy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Emolovee R/o- H No. 2 333/1, Bheema ra in, bro"[-- ], - [l.r-,i,i,in]: -lr,r"ii"r -rii,Ii]ilEl r, i

21.J.7 Sai J0. B Kapoor Employee, Nayak. Sio.Sri B.Rania R/o H.No. l-68, Morrpo6r B Nayak, aged about andankal, Karimnagar 42 years, Occ irupathi, S/p.J.Raiaiah aoed about 34 years, Occ. Busrness, R/o.Ranga Pally, Ramadugu, Karimriagar District. 22 ltll.Venkat Reddv S/o l\rl._Chokka Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ Emptoyee, R/o. H. No.a_25, M;trrd, ij;;;;;dH;, Karimnagar District 23. J.Mahender, S/o.J.Rajaiah., ag.ed . about 37 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. Ranga,Sai palty, R5madugu ]Karinrnag;r District. 24 K Hari Prasad, Sio.K Radha_ Kishan, aged about 42 years, Occ. Employee, R/o H. No. 3-'l - 1 74, Christia n Colony, Krri;;r;;;-' 25. Smt.Patan Fathimunnisa,. W./o.p.Althafa Khan, aged about 52 years. Occ fiilfll3l." R/o H No 7_3_1at ana i i_it+ii]'(rlHr"ur. Gadda, karimnagar 26. Kum. Kattekola SravanthL D/o. K. Bliagavan, aged about 30 years, Occ. fiilfll3l* Rio.er.No.r2-1szs, a rncri;d Corohv]'doarrur.,r1hr-,ii, kiii,i:rJgri 27 Smt.Gottumukkula Sunitha, Wo.G.Komal Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ Employee, R/o. H. No. 8-4-72 t, f rrumata Nagi-r] k'r'ri;n"ga 2S.Ankilla Laxma ceddy. S/o.A.Krishna Reddy, aqed about 6.:. vears Occ - --- 29.Padma Chinna 3akkappa, S/o.padma Durgaiah, aqeo aboL 1 i,O vears. Occ Emptoyee. R/o t-t No 11-2-60, Shivaji trtagar, SiOOi[et, fuJ;k Oistri.t Employee. Rio lt No '14-.123 Ramayampet "Medak Sistrici -

30. A. Sathyanalayarr,r. S/o. p^a!.ma. Durgaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ. Employee. R/o.l- No.3-44, pothgal. Kar"imnagar drstrict

31. Smt.Soma Ram;r,rjula. Wo.Soma Srinivas Rao, aged abou.. 42- Vears. Occ. Housewrfe R/o.li No.1-'1, Shiva Nagar, Jinnaram, M;daibi; 32 Buddarapu Kishrrr, s/o.B.Rangaiah, aged about 52 vears, or;c Emorovee R/o H No T'2-97 3 rncrine coro-nv, God5varikhani, xiriinnaijar-i;istr;i.''''""' 33 smt.Gandhar' Arr,tha. wo.G sreekanth Reddy, aged about 3r.r vears. occ. House Wife R/o t-t No 12- j-82, tr/ohinpura, SiOfipei-f,,,feOak i,,ri.iJt"-'"' ""- 34 Mada Srinivas teddy, S/o.Dharam Reddy, aged about 46 vears. Occ Ennprovee. R/o r-r No i5lr. saraswarhi Nagii, Loih[unri, s",,rioi,iIb"io ""- 35. Smt.Puli Manrula Wo Puli Prem Kumar Reddy. aged about 3t,t years, Occ. -' --- House Wife, Rlo - ruo t-o-z tziagt'otiio, c"e-n"5 io"rony. Hyo:irinlo. 36. s.santosh Kumar s/o.s.Sukhsena, aged about 35 years. or:.c. Business. R/o-.H No 2_-3-341i 1/1 Near Hoty riirn -Scnoo]- kii.r".,,,ii,j"r:""til;;"j Bollarum, Secuncerrabad

37.Pogula Prathap Reddy, S/o.p.Narayana, aged about 46 years, Occ. Emproyee, R/o H l\ro c- j r-5/6, HWp corony ns"wapuram, Krramriim iiistrict. 38.Smt D Vinoda W, c,. D. Sriniva.s Reddy, aged about 37 years, Ooc. House Wife, .'"- R/o.H.No.2-35, R,rgaraopa[y, Gan{adh"ara Hrtanoir (arimnasnJ oritri,r-t 39. K.Devender Redoy, S/o.Jalapailli Reddy, aqed about 3,3 years, Occ Business. R/o Lyg ala ma rri. peridapaili, riiiri,rnaiii oistrict

40.Smt.Ramarangula Vasantha, Wo.R.Krishita. aoed Busrness, R/o H lio 3-49i50/3, p No.25, Kadari Secunderabad about 38 years, Occ. Encla ve , Old Alwal, ...RESPONDENTS AA/RIT PETITONERS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circurnstarces stated in the affidavit fired in s rpport of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 27.06 2019 passed in rA No.1/2019 in wp No. 1292812019 and disnriss ,he above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU counsel for the Respondents: sRr MURALTDHAR REDDY, Gp FoR REVENUE The Court made the folkrwing: ORDER -- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY w P No.1 292 of2 t9 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to declare the proceedings No.8/877/2016 dated 19.06.2019 of the respondent No.4 treating the land covered by,,Tholla Kharkana,, (Old Sy.No.380) of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District as Government jurisdiction, violative land as illegal, arbitrary, the principles of natural non-application of mind and vitiated by perversity as well as opposed to Articles t4, 2l and 300_A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceeding s NI.B/A77/2016 dated 19.06.2019 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, plots. without justice,

2. The background facts of the case are as under: (a) In the earlier round of litigation. one Mohd. Najamuddin filed WP.No.984 of 2OO4 to declare the action of the respondent No.4 herein (Tahsildar - Mandal Revenue Officer, Alwal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District) in claiming to have handed over the possession of the land to the respondent No.3 to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Tolla Kharkhana of Alwal Village within the Municipal Limits of Alwal Municipality of Malkajgiri Mandal, at the request and instructions of the respondents No.1 and 2 and the action of the .> respondents I'Ic.1, 2 and 3 in seeking to implement ttre VAMBAY scheme bv clnstruction of houses treating the said lanl as the Government land as illegal, void, without authority or p(rwer and consequently, direct the respondents to refrain from n any way interfering wi:tr the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the subject lar d. By order dated 06.O2.2O15, the writ [)etition was disposed of directing the respondents to issue appropriatil notices to the affe(ted parties before taking any actiorr e ther for construction ot houses for urban poor and before claiming the land as Governme rt land, and till such time, the persons n possession of the land shall not be disturbed. (b) 'l hereafter, WP.No.5371 of 2016 was fi ed by the petitioners herein to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish I he structures in their respective plots ar d [rying to dispossess them from their peaceful possession and er jo','mgn1 35 being arbitrz ry and violative of orders of this Court dated 06.02.2015 ir WP.No.984 of 2004. Order dated 03.03.2016 was passed in WPNlP,No.6837 of 2O1-G in WP.No.5371 of 2016 granting interim directir>n as prayed for by recording the subnrission of the learned Gove -nment Pleader for Revenue that the Tespiln(lents are not interferinrl with the possession and enjoyment of ther petitioners of the subject land and would strictly follow the ordr:r dated 06.02.2015 r WP.No.984 of 2OO4. It appears that r'or non- 3 compliance of the order dated 03.03.2015, CC.No.1350 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar - respondent No.3 therein, it was contended that the petitioners ate pendente lte purchasers from the petitioner - Mohd. Najamuddin in WP.No.984 of 2OO4. As on the date of disposal of WP.No.984 of 2004, there were no constructions in the subject land and when third parties tried to change the nature of the land, the Tahsildar erected sign boards to avoid multiple alienations. That pending enquiry into the matter, as directed by this Court in WP.No.984 of 2OO4, the Tahsildar has removed the sign board erected on 26.06.2018 and that erection of sign boards of Government is not intentional, wilful or wanton and it is only to prevent the encroachments. (c) In consequence thereof, proceedings have been initiated by the Tahsildar in Proceedings No.8/877/2016 and individual notices have been issued to the petitioners .under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act. 1869, through registered post directing them to file any proof in support of their claim over the land. The petitioner No.1 filed explanation on behalf of all plot owners stating that Hazi Mohd Turab Saheb purchased the property in old Sy.No.380 of Alwal Village through registered sale deed No.3053/1353 Fasli and the existence of document was clearly mentioned in encumbrance certificate No.5188/2003 dated 4

13.08.2003 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar HyderabaC - II. Hazi Mohd Turab ;aheb executed Registered Gift deed on 16.07.1981 but the said rlocuments are not available and the -f; hs ldar can obtain the sarr e from the Sub Registrar. The land is a privilte patta land as confirmed by the Assistant Director Survey znd Land Records, Ranga Reddy District vide Memo No.A2l310/20()2 dated 16.08.2012 :rnd the revision survey records disclose tlat it is "Abadi" and the petitioners purchased the subject lar)d under individual registered sale deeds from Mohd \a.jamuddin S/o. Ibrahim \azam. (d) It s evident from the record that one Ayub A i l'lhan S/o. Sardar Ali X lran filed claim/objection petition statirrg that he purchased th: subject property in old Sy.No.380 of Alwi,tl Village from Mohd ltlajamuddin S/o. Ibrahim Nazam vide Agrer,:ment of Sale dated 1C.01.2002 and thereafter, he levelled the land and formed the rcads. M/s. Kanya Constructions filed a suit against him in O.S.No.11ri1 of 2023 seeking injunction against A. Ivlalikarjun Reddy, Mohd ltJajamuddin and another, which ended ir,:orrrpromise on 20.07,2005. WP.No.984 of 2OO4 was filed by Mohd t\laj,imuddin, which was disoosed of on 06.02.2015 wherein status qLro orders have been passed. When status quo orders were subsistirtg, Mohd Najamuddin e>lecuted 40 registered sale deeds in fa\/cur of Bujju Banoth and 01 hers (petitioners herein). ) (e) In the said proceedings, the respondent No'4 framed four issues as under: A. Whether the land as Government or private patta land' B. Whether it was purchased by Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb S/o Dada Saheb through registered sale deed No.3053/1353 Fasli. C. Whether the claim of Mr' Ayub Ali Khan S/o Saradar Ali Khan as GPA holder is sustainable' D. Whether Mohd Najmuddin S/o Ibrahim Nazam got saleable rights on the subject land and Bujji Banothand others acquired any ownership rights' (f) While answering issue A, it was discussed as under: "As per Sethwar prepared under Revision Survey' the land covered by old Sy-No'380 was not assigned any new Sy.No. and it was written as Abadi Kharkhan Cheram which means old Kharkhana which indicates that the land belongs to the Government but not any private individuals' The Sethwar is the base for all the entries in the subsequent records but based on the letter addressed by Mr' Mohd Najamuddin the Asst. Director sy & LR vide No.A2l310/2OO2, DL'16-OA-ZOO2 informed that the old Sy.No 380 was assigned to new Sy'No' Tollakarkana which extent is Ac 5-30 gts' on verification of pucca book of survey & settlement records the owner of the land is Haji Turbasab and that it is a private property and not a Govt. land' In the counter Affidavit filed by District Collector Ranga Reddy District in WP'No'984/2004 DL'26-O2-2OO4 stating that the land in old Sy'No'380 was described as "Tollakarkana" in the revision survey which took place in the year 1354 Fasli and that the Memo issued by the then Asst' 6 Director, Survey and Land Records is not rn dispute but the same wE s issued basing on loose papers available purprlrt,:)dly pertainir!r to the pucca book of Alwal Village. The peliticner did not -;rise any objection with regard to the non-as';igning of Sy.N) corresponding to old Sy.No.380 and alsl l,vith reqard to the classification describing it as "Tollakarkara". Any pennns aggrieved by Revision Survey have to quesl,ion the sam l within two years there from- The petitioner did not do so. lhe records shows that the (old Sy.No.3fl0) of "Tollakarlana" is described as "Abadi" and further the petitioner failed to establish that they are in possession of the subJect land and the documents submitted as link do:L m(:nts are proved to be fake. In view ot the same the subje(:t l,rnd can be treated as Govt. land. Irr view of the above facts, there is no evidence 1:hat the land covered by old Sy.No.380 oF Alwal village is a I)rivate property' (g) The issue B was decided by giving a finding l:hat the documents relied upon by the petitioners, througl- wt'ich the vendors of Bujji Banoth and others as well as Ayub Alr khan are claiming the lrlrd, are fake documents. On enquiry wh3ther Tolla Karkhana was registered in the property register of Alwal Gram Panchayath in the name of Haji Mohammed Turab Saher: or Mohd. Najamuddin, t're Alwal Municipality vide Lr. No.G 1 ,/2 42 /TPS/C- 27KPZ|GHMC/ L 8 dated 77 .O7 .2078 informed that no l)ro rerty is registered in t he name of "Tolla Karkhana" as per theirecords. Therefore, th€ claim of the petitioners as well as Lyub Khan through their r, e:ndor with regard to the subject land is Fals€. It was 7 further recorded that neither the petitioners nor Ayub Khan are in possession of the subject land. There are only three structures existing on the subject land. which are marked as A, B, C in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and that the registered documents clearly the same house numbers and the vacant plots also are registered in the same House Number i.e. 2096, which proves that they are fake numbers. Issue C is not concerned with the petitioners but is regarding the claim of Ayub Ali Khan, which was rejected. (h) In issue D, it was held that no registered was executed in favour of Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb and it is a fake document. Neither Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb nor Mohd. Najamuddin are owners of the schedule property and have any saleable rights. Therefore, the petitioners have not acquired any rights with the documents executed by Mohd. Najamuddin. In conclusion, the respondent No.4 held that the land covered by Tollakarkana is Government land classified as "Abadi" and no one including Mohd. Najamuddin Slo. Ibrahim, Ayub Ali Khan, S/o. Sardar Khan and the petitioners are having any rights therein. The order of the Tahsildar dated 19.06.2019 is impugned in this writ petition.

3. Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the sale deed bearing document No.3053/1353 8 dated 26.12.1153 Fasli evidences that one Abtr Baker Abdul Azizand Abdul tlameed sold an extent of Ac.14'13 gunta:' in old Sy.Nos.380, 3ti.. and 382 of Alwal Village to one Haji lvtol-ammed Turab Saheb. l'he Encumbrance Certificate No.5188/200::l dated

13.08.2003 disclosed the said transaction. The old Sy.Ncs.::81 and 382 are assign:C new Sy.Nos.26 , 27, 28, 29 and 30 in tire revision survey that to)k place in 1354 Fasli. As old survey nuntrers are agricultural lattrls, the survey authorities assigned n€'w survey numbers. Haji l,lohammed Turab Saheb gifted the new Siy.Nos.26 to 30 to his so r lYohd. Ibrahim Najam. The rest of the land admeasuring A:,7.37 guntas in old Sy.No.380 was used irs [anning Units and for l.hat reason, in the revision survey, no n!?w survey numbers has been assigned to old Sy.No.380. The revis on survey disclosed that the land in old Sy.No.380 was classified as "Abadi Karkhana Chet'aLm" popularly known as "Tholla Karkha 1a '. By a registered gift deed dated 16.07.1981, Haji Mohammec Turab Saheb gifted tirr: old Sy.No.380 admeasuring Ac.7.37 gurrta t to his grandson I'4ohci . Najamuddin. who converted the land intc plots and sold the same tc,the petitioners under various sale deeds.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the vendor of the retitioners did not han<l over the link document bearing do cument No.3053/1353 :asli to the petitioners during his lifetime sl-atlng that he has retaineri some portion of the land for himself anrJ required 9 the link document to be kept for himself. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the said document in the office of the loint Sub Registrar I in the year 2016 and it was informed to the petitioners that the record pertaining to the said document was sent to the civil Court and they are unable to provide the certified copy of the same. Learned counsel submitted that on an objection filed by the

5. vendor. Mohd. Najamuddin dated 04.O2.2OO2, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, issued a Memo in File No.A2l310 /2OO2 dated 16.08.2002 stating that old Sy.No.380 was assigned to new Survey No./Tholla Karkhana, which extent is recorded in new survey records as Ac.5.30 guntas and on verification of Pucca Book of Survey and Settlement Records, the pattadar name is also recorded as Haji Turab Saheb and according to the records, the Tholla Karkhana is a private property and not a Government land. The revenue department erroneously presumed that Tholla Karkhana is a Government land. Tholla Karkhana means Tanning Industry. As per the counter affldavit filed by the respondent No.2 in WP.No.984 of 2OO4, for old Sy.No.38O no new survey number was assigned and in the Wasool Baqui Register for the said survey number it was written as'Abadi Karkhana Cheram', which means old Karkhana and it belongs to the Government. l0 Learned counsel submitted that the registered sa e deed 6. bearing docurrent No 3053/1353 Fasli of the original owners followed by sulsequent registered documents and the sale leeds of the petitioners clearly reveal that the subject property is .r private property. Base<l on entries in the revenue records' the ri:s1:ondents cannot claim litle to the property, as held by tlri:; (lourt in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. COLI.ECTOR, HYDERABAD.,ThelandclassifiedaSAbad|/Gramakanlanlcannot be classiFied as Government land and it means land earmi;rked for residential put pre5s. When there is a bonafide dispute r':(larrling title and possessi l1 of the petitioners is prima facle cstablished' the responde 1t-Government is bound to institute a ( ivil suit or approprlate proceedings. The title of the petitioners c:innot be decided in surn marY Proceedings' Learnetj counsel for the petitioners further submit:eci that the 7. impugned prrl':eedings are passed without jurisdictir:rr ' [t is not stated under \^/hich statute the impugned proceedings hrve been initiated.TheTelanganaRevenueSummonsAct,l369dealswith the manner ir which summons or notices have to be issur:d to the parties. 11 ;5 ltot a proceeding akin to the Land Encroar:h m('rnt Act or LandGrabbirllAct.TheorderofthisCourtdated060;'l'2015in WP.No.984 ol 2OO4 is wrongly construed by the respondent No'4' ' :oo t1:.y lt-lr 6o t 11 This Court directed the respondents to issue appropriate notices to theaffectedpartiesbeforetakinganyaction,whichwouldmean that notice should have been issued under the relevant statute' Neither the impugned proceedings refer to any provision of law nor in the counter affidavit, the respondents were abre to substantiate the jurisdictional power of the respondent No'4 in passing the impugned order' Thus' the impugned proceedings are llable to be set aside.

8. Mr. Muralidhar Reddy' learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that the lands recorded as 'Abadi' are to be treated as Government lands' The petitioners have purchased the landfromMohd.NajamuddinduringthependencyofWP'No.984of 2004 and in violation of status quo order' purchases were made by the petitioners between 2OO4-2OL5' The vendor of the petitioners does not have any title to the property' Thus' the question of the petitioners acquiring title does not arise' The petitioners do not have /ocus standi to file the instant writ petition' Merely because the proceedings are issued under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act, 1869, it will not vitiate the proceedings' Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on several decisions 9. in support of his case and the decisions' which have direct bearing on the issue involved in fr'Iis-writ petition' are as under: t2 Entries in rslR_u{il!_!91!csidc_tEtgl!!!e STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. PRAMEELA MODI2 and G. SATYANARAYANA v. GovERNMENT oFANDHRA PR.ADEsH3 Bon afide disDul d a t n SHANTHA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS (p) LTD. v.. STATE OF TELANGANAa; p. KRISHNA AppA RAO v. stATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHS and G. SATyANARAYANA,S case ,3 r;upra). Meanino of Aba_di and Gramakantam RADHE SHYAM v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH6; VOONNA PRADESH? PRADESHs BANGARAJU v. GovERNMENT arrd SfGADAPU VIJAYA v. STATE OF ANDHRA OF ANDHRA

10. Heard Iv r. Srinivas polavarapu, learned counsel t,or the petitioners and 14r, Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government r)leader for Revenue

11. I have perused the counter affidavit filed by t:he -espondent No.4, which reiterates the findings recorded in the irrFrugned proceedings dat,:C 19.06.2019. The counter affidavit does n,rt say anything about J)e jurisdiction of the respondent No.4 and under ' :oo5 (JraLt:;,r (o r.. ) - 20 t4 (4 ) ALD j5S 'to2t 1;14gp63-. 'to2 r 1J.y ALD 20,1 1a, o20ll(lIALDroe ? 20 t4(3 ) ALD 4..13 ' t0 t5(4) Ar_D 88 l3 which statutory provisions, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. Even in the oral submissions, the learned Government Pleader was not able to convince this Court as to under which statute, the impugned proceedings are issued. According to the learned Government Pleader, as directed by this Court by order dated 06.02.2015, notices have been issued to the petitioners Revenue Summons Act, 1869 (for short under the Telangana 'the Act') and detailed enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice and the order impugned was passed'

12. The operative portion of the order dated 06'02'2015 in WP.No.984 of 2O04 reads as under: "In view of the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issue appropriate notices to the affected parties before taking any action either for construction of houses for urban poor and before claiming the land as a Government land, and till such time, the persons in possession of the land shall not be disturbed."

13. It has to be noted that there was no specific direction issued by this Court to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar to pass an order' It was a general direction to all the respondents' Though it is contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case that the enquiry pursuant to order passed by this Court in WP.No.984 of 2OO4 dated 06'02'2015 is pending, there is no reference to any statute or provision'tfTlw' l4

14. It is evide rrt from the record that notices have been is:iued to the petltioners Llnder the Act' which is a procedural law -Ihe Act empowers the r €rvenue authorities to summon a person to trroduce evidence for- irrrrestigation in any matter' The manne:r in which summon has to be issued and served on the party concerTted are shcu d have provided under the Act The impugned Proceedings substantive law to which power of the been initiated lnder a respondent No 'l can be traced' 15. The ordr:- of High Court dlrecting the statutory aul-hc)rities to issue notices Erld pass orders' in accordance with law' presupposes that such orders have to be passed in exercise of relevarrt s;tatutory power. When there is no statutory power vested in th(r a 'lthority' the question )F such authority passing an order' on mert':ly being directed by tl'tr High Court' would not arise lt is not as if the High Court can co I Fer jurisdlction on the Tahsildar' which he does not --ahsildar is an authority tnder the pro'risiorrs of the possess, 1'he Telangana R q hts in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Ac.:l' 7971; the Land Encroachment Act' 1905' etc' The impugnerJ pr'rceedings are not initiirted under any of these Acts As pointed out above, this Court hir'; not speclfically directed the Tahsildar 1o issue any notices as such' l5

16. In a given case, if the petitioners were found in possession of the property. then proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act or the Land Grabbing Act ought to have been initiated. If the respondents were in possession of the propefty, nothing prevented them from challenging the order dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004 wherein the possession of petitioners was protected until enquiry was initiated by the respondents in the writ petition by issuing appropriate notices. Having not challenged the order dated

06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2OO4, the respondent No.4 cannot be allowed to plead that the petitioners are not in possession of the subject land. It is settled law that the revenue records does not confer any title and as held in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRMTE LIMITED's case (1 supra), the TSLR entrles are not conclusive to decide title of a party. L7. In the light of the above discussion, as the respondent No.4 lacks jurisdiction in passing the impugned proceedings and there is no reference to any statutory provision, without entering into the merits of the case and giving findings regarding title of the petitioners vis-i-vis the respondents, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings No.B/87712016 dated 19.06.2019. The respondents are, however, at liberty to invoke appropriate legal proceedings for removing - dispossessing the petitioners from the subject property by following due process of l6 -- law and irr compliance of order dated 06.02.2015 in V/P.No.984 of 2004 -fhe miscetlaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs Ttrat Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice orl this Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth Day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/ T. TIRUMALA DEVI D[:PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, .1. The Prrncipal Secretary, Revenue DepartmenJ, Stlcretariat Buildings, Hyderaba,l State of Telangana.

2. The Distrirl Collector, It/edcha l-lvlalkajgiri District at Keesara. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri D vision, Sainikpuri, Secunderilbad.

4. The Tahsi dar, Alwal Mandal, lvledchal-Malkajgiri District at Alwal. 5. The Assistirnt Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District at Narayanar; rda Hyderabad.

6. The Mancai GirdvarA/RO, Alwal, Office of the Tahsi|iar, Medchal-Malkajgiri Districl at a lwal.

7. The Joint riub-Registrar-1, RO, Hyderabad, Office of the Diskict Registrar, Red Hills, l-lyderabad T.S S One CC tc, SRI SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU, Advocate [OPIJC] L Two CCs tr GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Sl,ate of Telangana a! Hyderabarl [OUT]

10. Two CD Cc pies BSR BS l++- - VACATION URT HIGH COURT DATED:28105120"25 ORDER WP.No.12928 of 2019 Stj l' .i--. c t) t 2 i; I ,2!i s > Z -h t) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS ($- \o \) )q, )S