1. Bandela Mallikarjun v. ilFdEI;$lBH'ffi "5-"iiii:i"?S

I l. Sriramula |larsaiah, S/o. Late ll:.aiah, Age 67 years, H.No.

12. Bandela M:rhendar, S/o. Uppaieh, Age 47 yearc, R/o.4-01 I 3. Sudhamalla. Rambabu, S/o. Late M.anikyam, Age 34 years, I{.No.

14. Sudharnallzr Naresh, S/o. LateNarsaiah, Age34 years. H.No-

15. Bandela Sridhar, S/o. Bixapathi, Age 43 years, H.No.2-75 I 6. Bandela Dasharatham, S/o Late Yt:llaiah, Age 57 years, H.No.3-133

17. Bandela Su,aroopa Wo. Narsaiah, Age 52 years,'H-No.2-54

18. BandelaLavanya D/o. Late Swamy, Age 45 yea.{s, H.No.45-3-l8g

19. Maddela Raju S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 48 years, H.No.3-162 ( I t I ! : I ! I !ir I a ; I I I ! I i t1 .ll $' W" I , :3

20. Bandela Ramesh S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 60 years, H':No.3.-I 14

21. Bandela Ranadheer Dlo. Late Narsaiah, Age 35 years, H.No.45.4-L3l -til.tr .,.:t r ,. ..r. , ,, ,. , . ...,

22.. Sudhamalla Agaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy, Age 47 years, H.No.4-148

23. Bandela Sambaiah S/o. Late Mallesh, Age 53 years, H.No.3-146.

24. Bandela Mahendar S/o. Late Yellaswamy, Age 40 years, H.No.4-15

25. Bantu Raju S/o. Ramaswamy, Age 53 years, I{.No.3-17

26. BandiAnjura Wo. Late Prabhakar, Age 50 years,.H:No.3-t5g

27. Bandela Komuraiah S/o. Late Kisraiah, Age 55 years;HNo.4-19

28. Sudharnalla Kanakaiah, D/o.Late Ramaswamy, Age 50 yeafs, H.No.4_14g.

29. Bandela Sudhakar S/o. Late Kanakaiah, Age 53 years, H.No.45-3-267

30. Maddela Kumarbswamy, S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 60 years, H.No.3-134

31. Bandela Ramesh, S/o. Late Swamy, Age 44 years, H.No.4:i.7

32. Bandi Renuka, Wo Late Babu Rao, Age 39years, H.No.3-16

33. Sandi Suraiah, S/o Late Ramulu, Age 54 yeaig H.No. 4-33 I $ $ :l a I t I I I I !i ,I It I € d 6 -.4; ")li: i

34. Bandela Vishwendar' ^- t^^' S/o - Late st" tni'ui- iee zs ydars' ['I'No'4-8

35. Bandela Ranresh S/o. Late Karta"iair' Age 43 years' H'No' ff[11i,iilil41*, Age 55 years, H.No-45-7-133s 4 ,, " fl*l#J$}"#ll, o*" 61 Years' H'No'4-06 38. Bandela Rtrnt 'o Bil:;il;i'i*i' Age 44 Years' H No'3-76 39. Bandi Sanrrnaiah) - S/o. Late t'Iut'J;t" Age 60 years' H'No'3-157

40. Bandela B'anjith Kumar S/o. Swarly, Age 35 years' -,^ir.r a.,q.,e labourers teii't'"*:lii*:**u3;lltrtrili;ux; Ly o""oputionand ':t1*ll:::K:H; Geesu ConOtilu"aal Warangal District) .Respondents/Petitioners d 4l.The Statt: of Telangana' ReP.its Pr:inciPal Secretary' tJl%:ffi*f-?ttecretariatBuildings'Hvderabad

42.TheSuP':rintending TNPDC ,, W**t""f Dlstrict' Warangal Engin:"'' ..

43.The Divisional Engrneer' --' - *r-PDc L, Kashibugga Division' Warangal District (ResPor'dent No.41 to 43 atenot necessary parttes a .. ResP ondents/ResPondents to this Petition) i Pel.ition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the affide'vit filed in support of the petition' the High vacate ttre interim orders dt: 28'05'2025 passed in dismiss the Writ Petition ' stated in the circumstances Court maY be Pleased to WP.No.15396 of 2025 and I :t .1: tliii?F-re-*--:I & lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: 1 2 And 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL, Warangal District, Warangal' The Divisional Engineer. TNPDCL, Kashibugga Division, Warangal District' ..Vacate Petitioners/Respondents Nos' 3 and 4 BandelaMallikarjun, S/ o. Narsaiah, Age 52 years, FI.No.4-7. Bandela Sambaiah, S/o- Larc Narayana, Age 65 years, H.No-2-83. Bancleler Prerneela, D/o- Latc: Pochalu, Age 54 yean's, t{.No.45-3-60- Bandela Swatny, S/o. Late Yellaliah, Age 75 years, H.No.3-139- Bandela Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Late Agaiah, Age 39 Yerlrs, H.nct.3-122, Bandela Krnnthi Kumar, S/o. t,ate L3uctraiatt, Age 39 Years, H.no.3- 143. Bandela Surnan, Si o. Late Chandramouli, Age 34 years, FI.No- 2-52. / a / I I ts-* 7- 8 9 Ban,lela Mogili, S/o. Late l&inakaiah, Age 59 years, H.No.3-133/11- Khammam Ravindar, S/o. Late Rajeeru, Age 53 years, H.no.3-181. 1O. Bandela Sushma, D /o. Late Kishan, Age 25 years, H.no.3-137. I t. Srir,a.mula Narsaiah, S/o. Late Illaiah, Age y7ears, H.no., !

12. Bandela Mahendar, S/o. Uppaiah, Age 47 years, R/0.4-01. 13 T4 Sudhamalla Rambabu, S/o. Late Manikyam, Age 34 -years, H.no. : Sud hamallaNaresh, S/o. Late Nars"i+, Age 34 .yea.rs, H.no-

15. Bar.dela Sridhar, S/o. B Age 43 years, H.no.2-75 ixg'1thi, 16 BarLdela Dasharatham, S/o. Late Yellaiah,

17. Bandela Swaroopa Swamy, . W/o Narsaiah, Age: 52 yeats H.No.2-54.

18. Barrdelei Lavanya, Hemadei, D/<>. Late Swamy, Age 45 years, H.It;o.45-3- 188. 19 Ma,ldela Raju, S/o. Late Kotnuraiah, Age 48 years, H.no.3-162. 20 2t Bandela Ramesh S/o. Late kbmuraiah, Age, 60 years, H.no.3- 1 14. ( Barrdela Ranadheer, D f o. Late Narsaiah, Age: 35 years, H.No.45-4-131.

22. Su<lhamalla Agaiah, S/o.. Ramaswamy, Age 47 years, H.no.4- 148. a I I I € --3 :i 23 Bandela Sambaiah, b/o. Late Mallesh, Age 53 years, H.no.3- 146.

24. Bandela Mahendar, S/o. Late yellaswamy, Age 40 years, H.no.4- 15.

25. Bantu Raju, S/o. Ramaswanry, Age 53 years, H.no.3- 17. 26: Bandi Anjura, W /o. Late Prabhakar, Age 50 years, H.No.3-158.

27. Bandela Komuraiah, S/o. Late Kistaiah, Age 55 years, H.no.4- 19. 28- Sudharnalla Kanakaiah, D/c. Late Ramaswamy, Age 50 years, H.No.4- [48. 29 Bandela Sudhakar, S/o. Late [(anerkaiah, Age 53 years, H.No.45-3 -267.

30. Maddela Kumaraswarty, S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 60 years. H.No.3- 134. 31 32 Bandela Ramesh, S/o. Late ilu.amy, Age 44 years, I{.No.4- 17. Bandi Renuka, Wlo. Late Babu Rao, Age 39 years, FI.No.3- 16.

33. Bandi Suraiah, S/o.LateRanrulu, Age 54 years, I{.No.4-33. 34 35 36 Bandela Vishwendar, S/o. Late Surendar, Age 25 years, H.No.4-8. Bandela Ramesh, S/o Late l(attaiah, Age: 43 yea.rs H.No. Bandela Narsaiah, W /o. Late Rukkaiah, Age 55 yea-rs, H.no.45-7- 13:i5. t h- Yi7 -t4 I

37. Kotha Rajamogili, S/o.Late .Veeraiah, Ag:61 years, H.no.4-O6. " 38. Bandela Rani, Dlo- Late Balraj, Ag,= 44 years, H.no.3-76.

39. Bandi Sammaiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Ag,:: 6O yea_rs H.No.3-157.

40. Bandela Ranjith Kumar, S/o.Swamy, Ag,:35 years, H.No... All the etbove Respondents are Daily wage labourers by occupation and resiidents of Gorrekunta village of Geesulfonda Mindal, Warangerl District. Respo ndent/ Writ Petitionc rs 4t Th: State of Telangana, Recresented by its Principal Secretary, Energl, Department, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Hydererbad

42. Th,: District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal 43 44 45 Th,: State of Telangana, Reoresented by its Principal Secretary, Re'renue Department Dr B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Re'renue Divisional Officer, Wa rangal Division, Warangal, Warangal District. Thri Tahsildar, GeesukondaMandal, Ge,:sukonda, Warangal District. ?l . . . Respondents / Respondents hL / ---_--.-_-- 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 Vacate the interim order dated: 28-05-2025 in Wp 15396 of 2O2S lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pteased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any works and coercive steps against the petitioners subject lands in Sy.No. 55 extent of Ac.5.08 gts in Gorrekunta Revenue village, Geesu Gonda Mandal, Warangal District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. YEDDU DIVAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY Counset for the Respondent Nos. 2,5to7: GP FOR REVENUE Counselfor the RespondentNos.3&4: SRI N. CHANDRASHEKAR, SC FOR TNPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER a iL t. .A IilON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA ORDER: o. Petitioners all claim to be residents of Gorrekunta village of Geesugonda Mandal, warangal District and belonging to sc-N[ala community. It is their case that Government allotted r:hem 1o0 square yards house sites in Survey No. 5s in L994 an,l issued pattas, some of which were later lost; the land was rocl'y and uneven, and they devel0ped it over years. Due to poor fin€rnces, most could not construct houses and / or could only raise pillars. It is stated, they applied for Indiramma houses and double bedroom houses but received no support, reapplie<l recently, and the applications are pending. 1' 1. white so, on o9-os-2o25,respondent officials came with JCtls, cleared the land, removed boundary rocks and laid a foundati,cn stone. when petitioners 'protested, they were informec. that a 331Ll KV Sub-Station was to be constructed. on Lil,-o5'2o25, petitioners therefore, submitted a representation to the District collector, RDo and Tahsildar seeking action and stoppage, but received no response. It is stated, Sretitioners later asked the authorities for details of the project emd the required extent, but they did not respond and continued preparations. on 13-os-202s, petitioners L 2 approached the superintending Engineer, operations circle, TNPDCL and submitted a representation, but no action was taken. Work continued and they were prevented from eniering their plots. When asked under what provision the works were taken up, no exPlanation was glven.

1.2. Petitioners state that construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station makes them affected families under Act 30 0f 2013, Sections 4 to 23, entitling them to procedures compensation under sections 26 to 30 and R&R under section 31. They state that none of these were followed and no notification or notice was issued. As the land is assigned land, .under they state that respondents also failed to follow the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, including issuing revocation notice. They contend that taking their plots without following law violates Article 14, Article 19, Article 21 and Article 3.ooA. The authorities are continuing markings and dumping material for construction, and if allowed, it is stated, petitioners will suffer hardship and irreparable loss. 2-The4ftrespondent-DivisionalEngineer,TNPDCL filed counter stating that consumers of Gorrekunta and nearby colonies were facing frequent power interruptions due to lengthy loaded feeders and increased loads; therefore, erection of a new g3ll1 KV Sub-Station at this location was proposed, and a \. l 4 a\ , request letter was submitted to the District Collector, Warangal, seeking ;rllotment of Ac. 1.OO of land for construction of the said Sub-Stal:ion at Gorrekunta. The District Collector; after considering the request, initiated proceedings for land allotmen t, The Government accorded permission to tJ e District Collector to allot land and give advance possession for the Sub- Station. Accordingly, the District Collector, through proceedings dated 3O. 12.2024, allotted Ac. l.0O of land in Survey No.55 out of Acs.5.00 of Government poramboke land to the electricity department; advance possession of this land was given on 28.04.2025 through a panchanama, and the Tahsildar, Geesugc'nda, handed over the land after fixing boundaries.

2.1. Respondent No.4 further states that the allotted land w:rs full of bushes, free from encroachments, and no construr:tions or house pillars were found; only Sarkar Thumma and thiok bushes existed in the area. 'Sub-Station foundation work, srvitch-yard marking, and clearing of bushes were carried out strir:tly within the specified area. It is stated that all actions were based on the advance possession order and panchanama, and there was no violation of any rule or law and the Collector allotted the land as !t was Government land. 2.2. It is asserted that the same contractor is presently working, at Mogilicherla Sub-Station and at Gorrekunta no 4 active work is in progress. The Sub-Station at Gorrekunta is stated to be essential to meet future loads and ensure reliable power supply for consumers in the vicinity. The Cotlector has the authority to allot land and give advance possession to meet essential public needs such as electricity supply. It is stated that petitioners, by frling the Writ Petition, are attempting to deny the lawful rights of electricity consumers. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. If petitioners claim ownership over the land, they must approach the competent civil Court to establish title, as this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate disputes regarding title or ownershiP.

3. The 7ft respondent - Tahsildar filed counter stating that the Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL, Warangal proposed establishment of 33/ 11 KV Sub-station at Gareebnagar and requested p.llotment of Ac.1.OO of land; based on his instructions, the Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Girdawar identified Government land in sy.No.Ss, measuring Acs.5.08 acres, at- Gorrekunta Village, which is vacant, fL. from encroachments, and The Revenue Divisional Officer submitted proposals for covered with bushes. alienation and the Collector, Warangal, through proceedings dated 3O.L2.2O24, approved allotment of Ac.1.OO. Advance 5 ( possession was also handed over to TSNpDCL on 2g.o4.2o2s through a panchanama and location sketch. 3.1. It is stated, petitioners'claim of pattas is untenable. As per Flevenue Records, the land in Survey No.s5 remained vacant since 1990-91, urith no houses, no constructions, and no occupatir>n. Even if pattas were granted in Lgg4, petitioners violated 'Sondition No.12 of the Assignment Rules by failing to construcl houses decades. since the: land is Government poramboku and vacant, no notice required prior to alienation. As the allotted land is Government land and not private patta land, the question of initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or LARR Act, 2oL3 does not arise. Therefore, the demand for compensation is wholly misconceived. 3.2- It is stated, Ac.l.oo of rand has been lawfulry allotted to TSNPDCL, and it is for them to proceed with construction. Petitioners' representations seeking stoppage of work have no legal basis. The alegation that the Government is taking a\vay petitioners'houses is incorrect. The land has been vacant frlr more than 30 years, and no houses or house sites existed at any point. Hence, no prior intimation or acquisition proceedirlgs are required. It is submitted that out of the total Acs-5.08. a small portion (o.2o-o.3o guntas) is being used for h& i I 6 I the SC crematorium, and Ac. 1.O0 has been allotted for 33/11 KV Sub-Station, which is a public .utility. The entire land falls within Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation limits, and use of Government land for public purpose is lawful.

4. Heard Sri Yeddu Divakar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL.

5. On consideration of the pleadings, documents and submissions, this Court is of the view that petitioners have failed to establish any legally-enforceable right over the subject land so as to maintain the present Writ Petition. The records placed by respondents, which remain unrebutted, clearly disclose that Survey No.55, to a total extent of Ac.OS-O8 guntas, is classified as Government Poramboke land and has remained vacant since 1990-91. Respondents have consistently stated that no constructions, no house sites, no pillars, and no occupation existed at any time in the said survey number. The assertion of the petitioners that they were granted pattas in 1994 is not supported by any substantial documentary evidence except general statements. Moreover, even assuming for argument's sake that pattas were issued, the admitted fact remains that they did not construct houses for more than three 7 ( decades, which as per the respondents amounts to violation of Condition No.12 of the Assignment Rules pertaining to assignm,:nt of house sites to weaker sections, which requires timely construction. Petitioners have not shown any material to dislodge the consistent stand of the respondents that land is Governnrent land and that it remained vacant for more than three decades. There is no material produced to contradict the panchanama dated 28-04-2025, the boundary markings by the Tahsildar, and the classification reflected in the Revenue Records.

6. When once it is demonstrated that land in Survey No.55 ir; Government land, the contention of petitioners that respondents were required to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under Act 3o of 2013 as amended by Act 2l of 2OL7, does not arise. Acquisition proceedings presuppose . private ownership or valid transferable rights. Governrnent land does not require acquisition from private parties. In such circumstances, the claim for compensation + under sections 26 to 30 of Act 3o of 2ol3 or rehabilitation and resettlernent under Section 31 is wholly misconceived. Likewise, t.I:e allegations of violation of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 are also untenable as the respond.ents have stated that land is Government poramboke h. 8 and has always been so, and petitioners have not shown otherwise. The contention that respondents violated Artiole 14, Article 19, Article 21 and Article 3OOA also cannot be sustained because there is no deprivation of private property when the land itself is Government land.

7. Respondents have further established through their respective counter affidavits that land was allotted pursuant to the request made by the Divisional Engineer for establishment of 33/11 KV Sub-Station, which is intended to provide uninterrupted and reliable power supply to Gorrekunta, Gareebnagar, and surrounding areas. The Collector issued Proceedings dated 30.12.2024 after due consider4tion and granted advance posseSsidn.under panchnama on 28'04-2025. The purpose for which the land is allotted is clearly a public purpose, and petitioners have not demonstrated any illegality, procedural .irregularity or legal prohibition against such l. allotment. This Court under Article 226 does not adjudicate disputed questions of title. Respondents have stated that if petitioners genuinety believe that they are owners, their remedy lies before the competent civil Court. Petitioners have not produced any evidence sufficient to establish pima facie title or occupation so as to warrant interference. On the other hand, :'-'- EQ\ 9 ,1 the d.ocumentary record placed by respondents supports their stand that land remained vacant Government Poramboke land'

8.Inviewoftheabovefactualmatrixandthelegal position, the court is satisfied that petitioners have not made out any calie warranting interference under Article 226 of ttre Constitutiorr. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9 costs. 10 The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed' No Consequently, Miscellanous Applications, if any shall stand closed. Sd/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR AsstsrlNT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'/ To

1. 2.

4. 5. BM MP One CC to SRI YEDDU DIVAKAR' fdvoc-ate-lOPlql - Two CCs t9 GP toi#"r""n#,'Hiilfi C;utt61tie State of Telangana' at Hvderabad IOUT] A- Two CCs tr: GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad IOUTI oheCCtoSRl'N'CHANDRASHEKAR,SCfoTTNPDCLIoPUC] Two CD CcPies a HIGH COURT DATED.2511112025 ORDER WP.No.15:396 of 2025 THE S (J L. * 1 B [r8 ln?fr * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a J 1/ ,\, \ \ l l i I It I