Bochkar Sudarshan v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia 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 in one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering with peaceful possession of the Petitioner by excavating part of the land admeasuring 598 sq. yds., in Plot Nos. 1 (Part),2 (Full), 13 (Part) and '14 (Part) situated in Sy.Nos.22l1, 2213, 27lA and 37/AA situated at Kotarmoor Village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad District without notice as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14.21 and 300-A of The Constitution of lndia consequently forbear the Respondents from interfering the aforesaid premises of the Petitioner. a/ 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 pass an order restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners peaceful possession overland admeasuring 598 sq. yds., in plot Nos. 1 (part),2 (Full), 13 (Part) and 1a (Part) situated in Sy. Nos. 2211 ,2213,2T1A and 37tAA situated at Kotarmoor village,'Armoor tvlandal. Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad' District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRt L.RAVINDER, counsel for the Respondent No.s: sRl LAXMALLA SANDEEP, AGP FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No.6: sRl p.KRlsHNA REDDY, sc FoR MpcL The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR IRRI & CAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL w N ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners by excavating part of the land admeasuring 598 sq.yds., in Plot Nos.l (Part),2 (Full), l3(Part) and 14 (Part) siruated in Survey Nos.22ll , 2213, 27lA and 37lAA situated at Kotarrnoor village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad District (subject property for brevity).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. He would submit that petitioner is the owner of subject land having exchanged it under registered exchange deed vide document No.4351 of 2018 dated 19.06.2018 from Sri Pedda Bajanna. He further submit that land has been converted from agricultural land to Non-agricultural land vide proceedings No.A3l5542/2010 dated 13.10.2010 and A3/554312010 dated I I I

13.10.2010 under the provisions of Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes), Act, 2006. He relied upon the demarcation certificate dated 24.12.2010 along with map which demonstrate that there is no govemment land included in the proposed layout. He would further submit that the said layout has been approved vide Lr.No.L.Dis.No.l3O4IHRO/HI dated

24.02.2011 through L.P.No.07l201I/HRO of Regional Deputy Director, Town Country Planning, which shows the subject land as commercial area.

3. He further submits that the petitioner filed a suit in o.S.No.3l of 2014 for specific performance against the vendor of the petitioner. Later the vendor of the petitioner filed o.SNo.8 of 201,3 for declaration of title and injunction against the petitioner. Both the suits concerned the subject property. He further submitted that both the suits culminated in a Lok Adalat Award dated

17.03.2018 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid plots fell to the share of the petitioner and an exchange deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that a few \ \ t individuals claiming to be from the office of respondent No.4, 5 and 6 have attempted to interfere with the possession of the petitioner on 16.06.2025 by digging in the land but the same was resisted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that land in question has clear title flown from the original pattedars through which the petitioner has become successor, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner is illegal and thus, would seek to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that admittedly the land in question has been converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land under the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes), Act, 2006 and further submits that demarcation has also been done and demarcation certificate dated 24.12.2010 along with map is issued stating that no government land is included in the proposed layout and layout permission has been given vide proceedings dated 24.02.201I through Regional Deputy Director, Town Country Planning and further submits that respondent Nos.4 has never interfered with the subject property. He further submits that in the case No.E2l34/2020, dated 2g.05.2025, a joint survey has been conducted. Accordingly, consequential action has been taken and land has been taken into the possession of official respondents in the presence of panchas and hence question of interference into the subject property does not arise. He would further submit that alr these aspects are not brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner and the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings issued by the District collector in Case No.E2/34/2025, dated 28.05.2025 and the said proceedings is not under challenge before this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is filed under misconception and hence, would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.5 submits that 5 .collector' Iand in question pertains to canar D-g2/2/r/zwhich has become defunct about in 40 to 50 years and as per the directions of District Nizamaba d in 2022, joint survey of defunct canals was conducted to demarcate the canal boundary, After conducting survey' the District corector has instructed the Revenue Divisionar officer' Armoor to take up fencing activity arong the defunct canals to safeguard the Government property and take up plantation in that area under Haritha Haram programme. further submit that the property in question has been converted into non-agricurtural land and subsequently layout permission has arso been taken without putting respondent No.5 0n notice under whose possession the property is rying and the same is perverse. Hence, would submit that proceedings have bln issued by respondent No'2 stating'that the said land belongs to the Irrigation department. He would further submit that by virtue of the same nothing would persist in the writ petition and would seek to dismiss the writ He wourd petition. \ t I 6 T.Havingheardthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner,learned AssistantGovernmentPleaderforRevenue,learnedAssistant GovernmentPleaderfortnigationanduponperusalofthematerial availableonrecord,itappearsthatthelandinquestionhasbeen taken into physical possession of the official respondents by conducting panchanama and also it is noticed that impugned proceedingsissuedbyDistrictCollectorinCaseNo.E2l3412025 dated 28.05'2025 is not challenged'

8.Inviewofthesame,thisCourtdoesnotfindanymeritin thiswritpetition.Accordingly,thewritpetitionisdismissed.No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any' stands closed' SD/.P. PON NA KRISHNA REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER of elangana, at Iourl GP FOR tRRl & CAD, High Court for the State of Telangana' at

1. One CC to SRI Two CCs to GP 2. Hvderabad CCs to Two Hyderab;ad. IOUTI one CC to SRI P.KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR tttp1L t1pucl Two CD Copies

3. To

4. 5. PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER WP.No.17718 of 2025 \ EH1 i"qS ({o( i lEoEcm o * { * PATC uECT DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \