The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the eviction order of the 1"t respondent in proceedings No.13/68512012, dated 05- 07-20'12, since the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008 is not decided and direct the respondents to forbear from evicting the petitioners from their houses bearing H.Nos.8-1-122 and 8-1-123 of Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District l.A. NO: 2OF 2012(WPMP. NO:26879 OF 20121 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affi,Cavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of eviction of the petitioners pursuant to proceedings of the 1't respondent vide proceedings No.13/685/2012, dated 05-07-2012, concerning H.No.8-1-122 and 8-1-123 of Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition /,r/ t/ II l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WVMP. NO: 2972 OF 2012) Between: '1 . The Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, at Nampally, Hyderabad. AND 'I . Mahboob Khan, 9o.Aslam khan 2. Nayeem Khan, S/o.Aslam Khan ....,PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS 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 order dated: 17.07.2012 passed in WPMP No. 26879 of 2012 in WP No. 20982 ol 2012 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: AGP REP THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER /,/ // / ,,,/ //I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH I ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.2O982 of 2ol2 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is connected with the order passed by this Court in W.P-No.216O8 of 2Ci2 dated 04.08.2025 and. requested to pass siniilar order in this matter also.

3. The learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing learned Advocate General for the respondents did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to disposal of W.P.No.216O8 of 2012 dated O4.Oa.2O25 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

4. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, this u,rit petition is disposed of in similar lines of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21608oc,2OL2 dated 04.08.2O25 / I I I 2 q Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed gf. No order as to costs

6. Registry is directed to annex copy of the order in W.P.No.216O8 ot 20t2, dated 04.08.2025 along with this order.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSTSTANT RE(iJSTRAR ,J; SECTIdI(OFFICER '1. The Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, at Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to M/S. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the.State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 04.O8.2025, in W.P.No.2'|608 ot 2Ot2) BM BSR (-T To, \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ORDER WP.No.20982 of 2012 3 1[it8m |;) * PAI * I DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ ,,qr\ 0xe \"lw /" /t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.216O8 of 2OL2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent No.3 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act (for short "the Act") uide order No.B/685/2012, dated 05.O7.2012 in respect of H.No. 1-109 (Old) / H.No.B- I -124 / I Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. A consequential prayer is (New), Mylardevapally Village, sought to direct the respondents not to interfere in the said subject house.

2. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3.

3. The facts giving rise to hle this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims that his grandfather was possessor of land in Survey No. 166 correlated old Survey No. 144, admeasuring Ac.74-36 guntas situated at Mylardevapally, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. During his lifetirne, he had constructed a dweliing house on land admeasuring Ac.O-25 guntas and the remaining land was used for cultivation. The petitioner's father has inherited the said property after the demise of his grandfather. Later, the petitioner's father passed away in the 2 year 1998 leaving behind the petitioner as legal heir. It is further submitted that the petitioner father's narne was also shown in the revenue records as occupant and the hnd was demarcated and ryotwari patta was issued in favor of his father. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 3 uide O.S.No.76 of 2OO8 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same has been transferred to the learned X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The petitioner further submits that his father constructed a house over the land bearing H.No. 1-i09 (Old) i H.No.8-l-124/1 (New) by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas out of Ac. 14-36 guntas. The respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner's father under Section 7 of the Act, 1971, dated 22.03.1993 stating that he was unauthorizedly occupying the Government land, to which, his father gave reply on 13.04. 1993. Without considering the sarne, a memo dated 24.04.1993 was issued for eviction. The said memo was questioned by the petitioner's father in W.P.No.5732 of 1993. However, the said Writ Petition is dismissed directing the respondents to issue notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1971. The respondent No.3 has issued a notice to the petitioner under / / I l Section 7 of the Act, 197L on 18.04.2012, to which, the petitioner has given reply. Without giving any further opportunity and personal hearing, the respondent No.3 passed orders under Section 6 of the Act, 1971 on O5.O7.2012 by giving 24 hours time to vacate from the dwelling house. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 10 of the Act, L97l on

13.07.2012. The respondent No.3 passed the orders directing the petitioner to vacate the house within 24 hours. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. This Court on 23.O7.2012 passed the followinf, order: "After heaing the learned counsel for the petitioner, th.e learned Gouentment Pleader for Reuenue and on perusal of the record, this Court pima facie finds that the Tahsilda4 Bandlaguda Mandal, uho passed the order and resorted to demolition, acted contrarlt to laLU. In the order pcs-sed on o5.o7.2o12, the OJficer clearlg mentioned that art appeal against the sane lies to the Reuenue Diuisional OfJicer. Hgderabad. Houeuer, he gaue 24 hours time to the petitiortttr to uacate the premises. The record discloses that in W.P.No.5732 of 1993, uag bock on 26.07.1996, this Court recorcled a clear finding to the effed that the petitioner constructed. house in the Aear 1978 afier obtaining permis.sion f orn the Gram Panchayat and permitted the respondents therein lo pass an order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachm<:nt Act. In his explanotion, the petitioner refened to all these facr.s. Still, the Tahsildar, did not refer to them. Demolition uas started, before the time for filing the oltpeal expired. There shall be interim stoy a-s praged for. Respond.ent No.7 shall issue instructions to his subordinotes to the effect. thot wheneuer on order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act is passed, further steps are not taken by the Tal-sildars, till the expirg of 3O days from the date of seruice of the order." I 4

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that petitioner's land to an extent of 704 square yards in Survey No. 166 has been regularized and that for the remaining land, they are taking steps under the provisions of the Act.

7. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. It is for the petitioner and the respondents to pursue remedies strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. Date: O4.O8.2025 Nsk JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR