Chennuri Venkata Bhardwaj v. 1- 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 any appropriate WriUOrder or Direction more Particularly one in Nature of Writ of l\rlandamus. i). To declare that the action of the respondents illegally Occupying and constructing 33/1 l KV electrical substation on the Petitioners land in Sy.No.451/1, Ac.0.30 gts Yadgiripally Village, [Vliryalaguda tvlandal, Nalgonda District without initiating any lawful acclt i ,ilion proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural lustice, against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian conStitllti( n particularly Article 14. 21 & 300-4 constitution of lndia. ii). To direct the Respc llent No.5 to vacate the Suit schedule propedy and restore possession to the p,e t lcner- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir lrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High C)(rr ri may be pleased to stay further construction of the 33/1 1 KV Electrical Substa i n in an extent of Ac. 0.30 Gts in Sy.No. 451/1 situated at Yadgiripally Village \liryalaguda ltilandal, Nalgonda district pending disposal of the instant matter. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIDHAR BONKURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 to 5: SRI N.SREEDHA IREDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents Nos.6 to 8: GP FOR REVENI' E The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 14617 of 2025 ORDER Petitioner claims to be'-i-re al-,s^lute orvner and possessor of Iand aclmeasuring Ac.0.30 gts in Survey No.45 i / 1 of Yadgiripalli Village, Mirl'alaguda N{ar-rdal, Na,lgonda District, sard to have been inherited through a notarized Will dated 31.i0.20 19 execnled b1' Iate Smt. Gadc Yashodamma. Petitioner alleges illegal encroachment b1' lhe oflicials of the TelarLgana State Southern Pou'er Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL), who have allegedly commenced construction of a 33111 KV Electric Substation on the petitioner's 1and, despite the existence of a mutation and issuance of a Pattadar Passbook in his name.

2. Heard Sri Bonkuri Sridhar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the officia-ls of TGSPDCL, in collusion u'ith the revenue authorities, have trespassed into his private land ald dispossessed him rvithout due process, in -) .- \r NBK, J rp l15l7 -2015 violation of Articlcs 14, 21 , and 30O A ol thr. (lonstitrLtion of India. He further contended that p:iitioner. rvas in lalr.ful possession of the subject lar-rcl, :rnd despite h.-ti ng bror-rght the issirr to the trotice ol thc Revenue Divisional C l icer' (RDC.,1 ar-rci other authorities through multiple representa r rns ar-td under the RTI Act, no remedial action *.as taken. H,: Lrrther submits that the construction is being carrie d out w,it1r ,r-rt acquisition, compensation, or follou-ing an,\: lau,ful proc,-: j rre. Therclore, pral,ed this Conrt to direct the respondent No. ; to vacrlt e the suit Schedule property ar-rd restore possession tc tte petitione r.

4. Learned Star-rding Counsel for the TGSpDt.l . appearir-rg for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, filed a counter afficje..it stating that there is no encroachment upon the petitioner,s lr r.d. it is statecl that based on the request of TGSpDCL, the I) rtrict Collector, Nalgonda, allotted lald admeas uring O.22 acre s in Survev No. 451 /2, ald possession rvas handed over tc ,IGSpDCL 07 .03.2022. The construction is being underta < rn in the said Government land and not in Survey No. 451/1 as rJleged by the petitioner. It is contended that there appeeu.r to be some confusion on the part of the petitioner in icien _ .ication of the NBK, J Np 14617-l0l-) property. it is further contended that the iand ,,vas identified by the Revenue Department prior to such allotment and that the survey numbers are distinct.

5. Upon consicleration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident thar the dispute essentially pertains to identilication of boutrdaries and allegecl encroachment, q.hich involves disputed questions of ract that cannot be adjudicated in exercise of r,r'rit jurisdiction under Article 226 ol the constitution of InCia. It is a s.^ttled principle of lau, tl-rat rvhen the adjudication ol rights requires examination of complex and disputed facts, includir-rg iand boundaries, titlc, and possession, the approprrate remedv lies before the competent civil court.

6. Accordinglv the u-rit pctition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to approach the civil court lor appropriate relief. There shall be no other as to costs. .-, SD/.1. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Qne CC to SRI SRIDHAR BONKURI, Advocate [OP cl 2 One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CD Copies P 4 A PMK BS HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 \ I SInf€ ' t c 11[.q ztpt -.) ,,\ 2 Ct .}" t ORDER WP.No.14617 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q J \+