High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI Ihe Constitution 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his site with structure in 116 sq. yards H.No.'1 -10-310 in Survey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Thirumalgiri tvlandal, Hyderabad District highhandedly and without following any due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and irrational and that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his long standing possession and enjoyment as per the application made to respondents on 09.06.2008 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn.POT) Department dated 16.02.2008 and consequentially direct the respondents not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the site with structure in H.No.1-10-310 in 116 sq. yards in Survey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bowenpalli, Thirumalgiri lt/andal, Hyderabad District. ,-i l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 13437 OF 20121 Petition under Sectron '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the site with structure No.1-10-310 in 116 in Survey No.49 of Thokatta Viilage, Bowenpally, Thirumalgiri [\,4andal, Hyderabad District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER .l HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1O63O of 2OL2 ORDER This rvrit petition is filed seeking thc follorving prayer:- "to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his site ntith stntcture in 116 sq.yards H.No.1-10-310 in Suruey No.49 of Thokatta Vlllage, Bouenpally, Thirumalgii Mandal, Hyde-rabad Distict, highhandedtg and tttithout follouing any due process of laut os arbitrary, illegol, and inational and that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his long stonding possession ond enjoyment as per the application made to respondents on O9.O6.20O8 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.166 Reuenue (Assn.POT) Department dated 16.02.2008 and ' consecquentially direct the, responde-nts not to disturb the possession and enjogment of the petitioner of the site u,ith stntcture in H.No. 1-10 31O in 116 sq.gards in Suruey No.49 of Thokatta Village, Bou,tenpaLli, Thirumalgii Mandal, Hgderabad District. "

2. Brief lacts stated in thts wriL petition are that the petitioner's father had purchased the agricultural lands in Sy.No.4S, 50,51, 52 and 66 logether with irrigation well in Sy.No.49. Later, thc said lancls \\,ere converted into residential plots and aftcr demise of pctiLioner's father, lhe said lands devolved on legal heirs and land admeasuring to an extent of 116 Sq.yards lell into the petitioner's share. The case of the petitioner is that the board of Revenue issued circular No.35/1OO/CO/54A Br dated 17.01.1955, entitling the possession for grant of patta to the land covered by any l r-_@\- :.{.'!.,i. . :.: -ltt a'\i irrrgation well. Subsequentllr, petitioner made applications seeking regularization and the samc was kept pending. Thereaftcr in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No,166 dated 1b.02.200g and as per adr.ise in Memo r.lf the District Collector bearing No.P2 / a45 / 2OOO dared 26.04 .2OO8 , rhe petirioner on 09.06.20t)8, submitted application No. 14926, secking regularizaLion of his posscssiol over thc subjecr land and the same is still pending. Further case of the petilroner is tha t on 09.O1 .2O12, the respondent No. I threatened the petitioner and tried to dispossess him frorn tl-rc subject land. \ggr-ievcd by the samc. this'"vrit pctition is lilcd,

3. Learncd AssisLant Govcrnrnent pleadcr for Revcnue appearing for respondcnt Nos. i to 3 submits that this Court uirJe orde r datcd 16.04.2012. passed thc fc,llo,,vir-rg interim order: " In the meanuhile, di-s',possession. " there shall be interhn staA of

4. Subsequently, counter ts liled on behal. of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that land to an extent of 1 16 Sq.yards in premises No.1-10-310 is classilied as ,,Gor,.ernment Land_ Poramboke u,ell" and on petitioncr,s application, the matter was enquired / inspected and proposal have been submitterl to the Collector, l{yderabad and the State level Committec was held on O8.O9.20 10 and since the land is claisilied as ,.Government 'rars'itlli.?f*f-&!{t*f' , -) t i I I I I I I l t Land-Poramboke well", the committee has rejected the proposal for regularization. lt is further submitted that the memo issued by District Collector, Hyderabad, bearing No.R2l ll52l2OlO daLed 24.06.201 1 , was communicated to thc petitioner for reference.

5. Learned Assistant Governmcnt Pleader further submits that on 22.O3.2012, notice undcr Section 7 o[ the then Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, L9O5 (hereinafter referred as Lhe APLtr Act) has been issued to the petitioner and when there was no explanation in thc mattcr from the pclitioner within stipulaled time another notice under Seclion 6 of APLtr Act has been issued on 02.O4.2012 and the regularization application in respect of land admeasuring 1 16 Sq.yards, in Sy.No.49 was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent authorities on 07.O4.2012, had laken possession of thc subject land under duc process of law. Hence, learned Assistant Governmen[ Pleader pray this Court lo dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard, learned AssisLant Government Pleader for Revenue and it is noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner on

25.07 .2025 and O4.08.2025, requesled this court to granL time to get instructions and on his request urhen the matter was Iisted today under the caption 'specially identified cases', 4 \ .'.' :'.., .-/:''. ..' learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no instructio ns from the petitioner. -

7. Rec,trcling the submission of learned Assistant Government for Revenue and since there are no submission on behalf of the petitioner, this Court do not li.r d ar-r1, merrts in this writ pelitron and deems it appropriate to dismiss the u,rit petition.

8. Accc,rdingly, this Writ peLition is dismissecl. .lhere shall be no order as to costs. As scquel to it, Miscellzrneous petitions, il any pcnclir.rg, shall stanc[ dismissed S /. B. REKHA RANI ANT REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY// \ ,\i \I One CC to SRI V.RANICHANDER GOUD, Advocate [d'p UC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 CTION OFFICER of Telangana at Two CD Copies W To, 1 2 3 BSR PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 l I I i I i I ORDER WP.No.10630 of 2012 -:-'-i-\ /,--- _ , ,-. tt ;4 7.ai 2 4 StP 2025 i; \:\ :l- \.. ' \:.q ,r - \+.!rArclti- \:=::-_-/ ', / !; .. '* . ,/ -2'l- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS G,l-' 11t q