The High Court · 2025

Sriran-rr-tLa Narsaiah, S/o. Late lllaiah, Age YTears, H.no.

12. Bandela Mahendar, S/o. Uppaiah, Age 47 Years, R/o.4'O l

13. Suclhamalla Rambabu, S/o. Late ManikYam, Age 34 Years, H.rro .

14. S urcll-r:r In a1la Naresh, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Age 34 Years. H.no .

15. Bzrrtdela Sridhar, S/o,BixaPathi, Age 43 Years, ll.no.2 75.

16. Ralrdela Dasharatham, S/o. Late Yellaiah, Age 57 Years, I {. No.3- 133.

17. Barrdela SwarooPa W/o Narsaiah, Age: 52 Yeats H.No.2-54.

18. Bandela LavanYa, D/o. Late SwamY, Age 45 Years, H.No.45 3- 1BB.

19. I\{addela Raju. S,i o. [,ate Iiomuraiah, Age 48 years, I{ no.3 t62. { Bandela Ramesh S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 6O years, H.no.3- 1 14.

21. BandelaRanadheer, D /o. Late Narsaiah, Age 35 years, H.No.45-4- 131.

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. BandelaMahendar, S/o. Late Yellaswamy, Age 40 years, H-no.4- 15. 25 Bantu Raju, S/o. Ramaswamy, Age 53 years FI.no.3 17.

26. BandtAnjura, 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. Sudhamalla Kanakaiah, D /o. Late Ramaswamy, Age 50 years, H.No.4-148.

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

30. Maddela Kumaraswamy, S/o. Late Komuraiah, Age 6O years, H.No.3- 134. I; I I I 1 I ,i ;\ i 6 31 32 33 34 Bandela Ramesh. if,tof irt*amv' Age 44 vears, Bandi Renuka. W/o. Late Babu Rao r H.No.3 16 , '\ge 39 Years, Bandi Suraiah. ,S/o.Late Ramulu. Age 54 years, H.No.4-33. Bandela Vishwendar. S/o. Latc Surcncia r A ff.ru..+_S. vqr\_,r(r.1r. ngc 25 years

35. Banclela Ramesh. S/o Late I(:rttaiah H.No. Aee: 43 years

36. Bandela Nar.saiah, W/o. Late Rukkaiah, Age 55 years. H.no.45_7_ 13i15. 37. Kotha Rajamogili, S/o.Late Veera"iah. Age 6 J years, H.no.4_06.

38. Bandela Rani. D/o Late Balr.aj, ,\gr.-14 years, H.no.3-76.

39. Bandi Sammaiali. S./_o. Late Narsaiah, Age: 60 years H.No.3-t57

40. pT*I" Ranjith Kumar, S/o.Swamy, Age 35 y"".", 3i, in:::1:*'ffi'l3i'" / Pe t i r i o ners are i 4.,, r.'o i a;" il"" :1",?ii1.l 3 ;,,, " " .. o " I I I i ! l I I I J. 4 Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal District. ..... APPtrLLANTS/PETITIONERS AND

01. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, ,,-Energ Department ' Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buiidings,Hyderabad

02. The District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal

03. SuperintendingEngineer, TNPDCL, Warangal District, Warangal. o4 Divisional Engineer. TNPDCL, I{ashibugga Division, Warangal District.

05. The State ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 06 Revenue Division:rl Officer, Warangal Division, Warangal, Warangal District.

07. The Tahsildar, Geesukonda Mandal, Geesukonda, Warangal District. RtrSPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS l.A.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 pleased to suspend the order dt.25.11 2Q25 passed in W.P.No.15396 of 2025. : Counsel for Appellants : SRI YEDDU DIVAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 5 to 7 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKAR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TEI.ANGAI{A ATIIYDERABAD THE HONILE JUSTICE MOUSHT'MI BIIATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1468 OF 2o25 7 9th Decem.ber, 2025 Between Bandela Mallikarjun and 39 others AND The State of Telangana and 6 others ...Appellants ...Respondents Mr.Y. Divakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. A. Chandra Shaker, the learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL) appearing lor the respondent Nos.3 and 4. JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) L The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 25. 1l .2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 15396 of 2025 frled by the appellants/writ petitioners.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants were not able to make out a case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.A-No- 7468 oJ 2o25 3. The appellants herein frled the Writ Petition praying for a Writ 2' iltB,J & Gi\. of Mandamus delcaring the action of the respondents in attempting to take away the house site plots for the purpose of construction of 33/ 11 KV Sub-station in the land admeasuring Ac.O5-08 guntas in Sy.No.SS of Gorrekunta Revenue Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District'"r,ithout initiating land acquisition proceedings under The Lar-rd Acquisition Act, 1894 or under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the 2013 Act'), AS illegal and arbitrary

4. The writ affidavit states, inter olia, that the appellants are the residents of Gorrekunta Revenue Village of Geesugonda Mandal, Waranga-l District and belong to Mala Community. Most of the appellants constructed houses in the ailotted house sites and applied for Indiramma Houses in a 'Scheme'. However, the Government did not provide any support to the appellants and the applications for the Indiramma Houses Scheme is pending with the Government. The writ affrdavit further states that on 09.O5.2025, the respondents laid a foundation stone for a KV Sub-station in the land and started construction on the house plots allotted to the appellants. On 13.05.2025, the appellants approached the respondent No.3/Superintending Engineer, Operations Circle of The Telangana Northern Power Distribution Company Limited MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.7468 ol 2025 ("IGNPDCLJ but did not receive any favourable response from the 3 said respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners reiterates the averments set forth in the Writ Petition and relies on an un-dated document of the Mandal Level Committee to urge that the land, on which the respondents are constructing the 33/ 11 KV Sub-station was duly allotted to the appellants. However, the appellants have failed to produce any document to show that the alleged proposal for allotment of the land/house sites was ultimately approved by the competent authority.

6. The iearned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the construction of the KV Sub-station has been completed and that the appellants have not shown an,y evidence of titie over the land in question i.e., land admeasuring Ac.05-08 guntas in Sy.No.55 of Gorrekunta Revenue Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District which would entitle the appellants to get an order from the Writ Court. Counsel further submits that the document relied upon by the appellants only reflects a proposal by the Mandal Level Committee which cannot be accepted as proof of ownership ofthe land.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the material placed before us. luB,J& GP\ W-A-No'1468 oJ 2O25' The appellants before us have not shown any evidence of 4 8 ownership of the land in question, save and except a document of the Mandal Level Committee. As stated above, the document does not reflect any date and only contains a proposal in respect of certain lands. There is no further record of any house plots or land being allotted to the appellants in terms of a specifrc scheme or otherwise.

9. The writ afhdavit also does not contain anv particulars of the I housing scheme which the appellants seek to relv upon. None of the documents contained in the Writ Appeal papers conclusively establish any right, title or possession of the appellants in respect of the land in question. In essence, the appellants have not been able to rebut the claim of the respondents that the land in question belongs to the Government.

10. Therefore, the learned Single Judge correctly held that the appellants/petitioners failed to shora, any material to dislodge the consistent stand of the respondents that the land in question belongs to the Government ald remained vacant for more than three decades. The learned Single Judge also found that the appellants' contention of being granted Pattas in 1994 was not supported by any documenta5r evidence, except bare pleadings. In any event, the appellants failed to mate aly construction over ttre iand in question within the stipulated period of time 5 *.^.*"T;{f,"tTf;! 1 1. We also agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that once the land is demonstrated as Government land, the question of initiating proceedings under the 20 13 Act does not

12. Last but not the least, it is evident that the appellants seek to adjudicate questions of title and orvnership over the land in question which is impermissible 1n Writ jurisdiction. The Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of facts including those related to title. The appellants' remedy lies elsewhere.

13. The above reasons persuade us to hold that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition due to lack of evidence of occupation or €rny existing right in favour of the appellants. We thus hnd no scope for interference in the impugned order dated 25.11.2025

14. W.A.No. 1468 of 2025, along rvith all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V,S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Ohe CC to SRI YEDDU DIVAKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKAR, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies To SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:191212025 I THE S Y (-) t * 05 -l B'ltt/t t JUDGMENT WA.No.1468 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. (9 9t 1 t-- vL d