High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The Tahsildar, Thirumalgherry Mandal, Thirumalgherry, Secunderabad. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...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 appropriate, writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his site with structure in 473 sq. yards with No.'l-10-309/4 in Survey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Thirumalgiri Mandal, Hyderabad District highhandedly and without following any due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and irrational and that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his long standing possession and enjoyment as per the application made to respondents on 05.09.2008 pursuant to G.O.1ttls.No.166 Revenue (Assn.POT) Departrnent dated 16.02.2008 and consequentially direct the respondents not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the site with structure in 473 sq. yards in Survey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpalli, Thirurnalgiri Mandal, Hyderabad District. .4. OF 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 not to dispossess the petitioner from the site with structure in 473 in Survey No. 49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Thirumalgiri Mandal, Hyderabad Dist., pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIV.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counset for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10629 of 2OL2 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the lollowing prayer:- "to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess tlrc petitioner from his sife with structure in 473 sq.yards with No.1-10-3O9/A in Suruey No.49 of Tlnkatta Village, Bowenpally, Thirumalgiri Mandal, Hyderabad District, highhandedly and without following any due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, and irrational and that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his long standing possession and enjoyment as per the application made to respondents on 05.09.2008 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166 Reuenue (Assn.POT) Department dated 16.02.2008 and consequentially direct the respondents not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the site with structure in 473 sq.yards utith No.1-10-3O9/A in Suruey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Thirumatgii Mandal, Hg derab ad Distnct. "

2. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner's father had purchased the agricultural lands in Sy.No.48, 50,51, 52 and 66 together with irrigation well in Sy.No.49. Later, the said lands \vere converted into residential plots and after demise of petitioner's father, the said lands devolved on legal heirs and land admeasuring to an extent of 473 Sq.yards fell into the petitioner's share. The case of the petitioner is that the board of Revenue issued circular No.35/ loo/Co/54A Br dated 17.o1.1955, entitling the possession for grant of patta to the land covered by any I 2 irrigation well. subsequently, petitioner made applications seeking regularization and the same was kept pending. Thereafter in pursuant to G.o.Ms.No.166 clated 16.02.2oog and as per adrrise in Memo of the District collector bearing No-P21446/2ooo dated 26.04.2oog, rhe petitioner on 09-06.2008, submitted application No. r4925, seeking regularization of his possession over the subject land and the same is still pending. Further case of the petitioner is that or-r 09.o4.2o12, the respondent No.1 threatened the petitioner and tried to dispossess him from the subject lancl. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revcnue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits ihat this court uide order clated 16.04.2012, passed the following interim order:- "In the meanuhile, there shalt be interim stag of di.sposses sion."

4. subsequently, counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that land to an extent of 473 Sq.yards in premises No.1-lo-303 is crassified as .,Government Land- Poramboke well" and on petitioner's application, the matter was enquired/inspected and proposal have been submitted to the collector, t{yderabad and the State level committee was held on 23.07.2011 and since the land is classified as ,,Government k +.- ; t a\ a J Land-Poramboke well", the committee has rejected the proposal for regularization. It is further submitted that the memo issued by District Collector, Hyderabad, bearing No.R2/1510/2O08 dated 14.l2.2}ll, was communicated to the petitioner for re[erence

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that on 22.03.20 12, notice under Section 7 of the then Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred as the APLE Act) has been issued to the petitioner and when there was no explanation in the matter frclm the petitioner within stipulated time another notice under Section 6 of APLE Act has been issued on 02.O4.2O12 and the regularrzation application in respect of land admeasuring 473 Sq.yards, in Sy.No.49 was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent authorities on 07.O4.2OL2, had taken possession of the subject land undcr due process of law. Eventually, learned Assistant Government Pleader pray this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and it is noticed that the learned counsel tbr the petitioner on

25.07.2025 and O4.O8.2O25, requested this court to grant time to get instructions and on his request when the matter was Iisted today uncler the caption 'specially identified cases', ( I 4 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no instructions from the petitioner.

7. Recording the submission of learned Assistant Government for Revenue and since there are no submissions on behalf of the petitioner, this court do not find any merits in this u,rit petition and deems it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. SD/- B. REKHA ISTANT SECTION OFFICER State of Telangana at /TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to SRI V'RAIVICHANDER GOUD' 2 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court Hyderabad lourl

3. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP ?r,A/.. j I I _4 \/ HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 f t ORDER WP.No.10629 of 2012 .\ HE ST4 0 7 JA}{ 2[2[ 'v .c'-. (f () * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @P*r-' u-\wl>{