Shamshu @ Mohammed Shamshuddin v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Copstitution 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 directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.4 in passing impugned order vide Proc., No.B,13711212024 and issuing Notice No. 913711212024. dated.22-08-2025 U/s.6 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by direct{ng the petitioner to vacate his house property bearing H.No.6-73l254l4/N/P adnfsg., 100 Sq., yards.in Sy. Nos.116 to 1 1 8 and 1 36 to 143, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Manikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy Dist., TG, by alleging that the petitioner is the encroacher of the government land in $y.,No.146, is without considering the explanation dated 2g-O1-2025 submitttd in pursuance to the Notice No.Bl371l2O24, dated.23-01-2025 and withoirt conducting any su rvey/enquiry/verifying the petitioner's title deeds, as highly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and amounts to violation of Articles of Constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequentl/ direct the respondents and their subordinates not to interfere with the petition,:rs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the above mentioned house property including eviction /demolition in any manner forthwith. 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 Oourt may be pleased to suspend the impugned order vide Proc., No. B/37112'.12024 and Notice No. 813711212024, dated.22-08-2025 U/s.6 of Land Encroachment Act, '1 905 passed by the respondent No.4 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP F')R REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER .1"EF HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETTTTON N .26294 0F 202s ORAL ORDER: Hcard leamed counsel tbr thc petitioner and Mr. L. Ravindar, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revcnue appearing on bchalf of the rcspondents

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of thc house bearing No.6-73125414/N/P. admcasuring 100 square yards in Survey Nos.1l6 to ll 18 and 136 to 143, situated at Puppalaguda Village within Manikond,a Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the strength bf a registered sale deed bearing document No.2856 of 2016, dated I 1.05.2016. He is in possession of the said propcrty. In proof of thc sanrc. hE has filed copies of thc aforesaid sale decd, link documents and layout.

3. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 23.01.2025 alleging that tho petiti<-rner occupied the land admeasuring 80 square yards in Survey No.l46, situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandat and corlstructed fumiture making shop itlegally. 'Iherefore, seven (07) days fime was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. He has subriritted explanation on 29.01 .2025 . E..# \CF. '': \ \. \ 2 KI-.J W P No 2529.1 ol202t Howevcr. respondcnt No.4 virle proceedings datcd 22.08.2025 directcd the petitioncr to vacatc liom the sub-ject property. Challcnging the said order. the pctitioncr hcrcin filcd thc present rvrit petrtion.

4. As discussed abovc. rcspondent No.4 ha:; issucd notice dated

23.01 .2025 under Section - 7 ol'thc Land Encroachrnenr Acr III of 1905. Thc petitioner has submitted explanation on 29 01.2025. Ir is the specilic corltention of leamcd counscl fbr the p,:tiLioner that in thc impugned orclcr datcd 21.08.202-5. Lhcrc is no considcration ol the said explanation submittcd by the petitioner dated 29.01.2025 and F-Linc application submittcd bv him scckir-rg sun'ey uf thc afbresaid property. Perusal of the explanation datod 19.01.2025 would disclose that ths petitioncr has not statcd aboul submission of F-l.ine application. He has submitted the said I.-l.inc application on the same (la\, i.e..29.01.2025. Therefore. this Court is of thc vi*v that the imouencd order datcd

22.08.2025 passed by respondent No.4 is an appealaLrlc ordcr in terms of Section - I0 of the Land Encroachment Act tll of 1905, and the petitioner has Lo prefcr an appcal befttre Appellate Auth()rit).

5. 'I'here is no dispute rvith regard ro thc legal position that despite availability ol' altemative rcmedy, still the prese nt \\ rit ncrition is maintainable under thc lbllowing three circumslances as hcld by the 1/ w t I 3 KL,J w P No 26294 of2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst. Cbmmissioner of State Tax v' Commercial Steel Limitedr and alpo Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2- i. A breach of fundamental r{ghts; ii. A violation ofthe principlqs of natural justice; iii. An excess ofjurisdiction; or a challenge to the vrres of the statute or delegated tegislaf ion. The petitioner herein faited to m{ke out any of the aforesaid circumstances to maintain present writ petition.

6. Therefore, this u,rit petition is disposcd of granting liberty to the pctitioner to prefer an appeal lr'i$rin rrvo (02 ) weeks from today challenging the order daled 22.08.202[ of respondent No.4 before the Appellate Authority in terms of Sectio{r - 10 of the Land Encroachment Act III of 1905, and also an applicatiln to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the said impugned ordcr dafed 22.08.2025, and the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the said stay petition within two (02) weeks and the appeal within three (03) mont$s liom the date of filing the said appeal considering the aforesaid reSiistered documents etc. If the petitioner fails to prefer the appeal wit$in the aforesaid timelines, liberty is granted to respondent No.4 to take steps pursuant to the order dated '. (zoz2) t6 scc 447 r. (1998) 8 scc I r \ f: 4 Kl.l W P No 2629.1012025

22.08.2025. In the circumstances of the case, therc shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, misccllancous petitions, if any. pending in the writ petition shall stand closed SD/ //TRUE COPY// RI SHANKAR REGISTRAR REcFFoNo To,

1. The Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, TS Secretariat, at Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, C,ffice at Kongarakalan , lbrahimpatnam Ranga Reddy Dist., TG

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gandipet Revenue l)ivision, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District, T.G

4. The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Gandipet, Ranga Fleddy District, T.G 5. One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocale IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for tre State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BSR/BSK M, HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.26294 ot 2025 B S c(( c) c) il I q[:P *" \1,*.,.] '1;r' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q (L .)