Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1145 (TS)

Mohd Yousuf Ali v. State of Telangana

2025-10-06

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the petitioner's possession and title over the property bearing Door No. 168/P on Plot No. 5, admeasuring 272 square yards, situated opposite ESI Hospital, Erragadda (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property'), as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to have acquired valid title through registered documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act and has been in continuous possession of the subject property for over 50 years. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a consequential direction to restrain the respondent authorities from interfering with or attempting to dispossess him from the subject property without due authorization and sanction of law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property bearing H.No. 8-3-168 was originally owned and possessed by Sri Surya Narayana Rao and Sri Ranga Rao. They sold the said property, after dividing it into several plots, in the year 1971 through a firm named Estate Sales Corporation. The vendor of the petitioner, Smt. Padma Bai Abraham, purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed bearing No. 347/1972, dated 01.12.1972, registered at the District Registrar Office, Hyderabad, from the said Sri Surya Narayana Rao and Sri Ranga Rao. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the subject property from Smt. Padma Bai Abraham through a registered sale deed bearing No. 2292/2003, dated 05.07.2003, registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Hyderabad. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s vendor had earlier submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Urban Taluq, Hyderabad, seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in respect of the subject property. Vide Letter No. D/4306/1978, dated 11.06.1978, the Tahsildar issued a No Objection Certificate stating that the property bearing H.No. 8-3- 168 is private patta land and not Government land. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has obtained water and electricity connections for the subject property. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. 4. It is submitted that when the official respondents attempted to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 25271 of 2010, which is still pending adjudication. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. 4. It is submitted that when the official respondents attempted to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 25271 of 2010, which is still pending adjudication. Subsequently, when the respondents sought to acquire the land for the Metro Rail project, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 41345 of 2014. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. 5. Further, when the respondents issued notices under the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13492 of 2017. This Court, while granting status quo as on that date in all respects for a period of five weeks, disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. The appellate authority was directed to consider and pass orders on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the application seeking interim relief. 6. It is also submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in similar circumstances, passed orders in W.P. No. 15564 of 2011, dated 26.06.2012, holding that the petitioner therein shall not be dispossessed from the subject land. However, the petitioner therein was also directed not to raise any construction on the subject land until further orders. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that, since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, having acquired the same from his vendor for valid sale consideration. He further submits that, as the official respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yerikala Sunkalamma & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue , Civil Appeal No.4311 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3324 of 2015) and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad , [ 2001 (3) ALD 600 ] 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner has already filed writ petitions viz., W.P. No. 25271 of 2010, W.P. No.41345 of 2014, and W.P. No. 13492 of 2010 seeking similar reliefs with respect to the same subject property. 9. He further submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that his application for regularization was rejected by the official respondents. It is submitted that while the petitioner claims there was a house on the subject property, the said land, on ground, falls in T.S. No.1, Ward No.7, Block-E, correlated to old Survey No.127 of Bobbaguda village. As per the revenue records, the land is classified as ‘Sarkari’ (Government land), and it is vacant, with a signboard erected on site clearly stating that the land belongs to the Government and that trespassers will be prosecuted. As per the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR), in Column No.10, the classification is recorded as ‘Sarkari’, and in Column No.20, it is recorded as "G - Hospital". 10. He submits that the petitioner’s claim of being the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property is false. The petitioner had earlier made an application for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.166, which was rejected by the District Level Committee. This rejection was also communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. R2/9827/2010, dated 09.04.2012. However, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed this fact. 11. He further submits that eviction proceedings were initiated, and a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act (A.P.L.E. Act) was issued on 31.03.2012. The petitioner failed to produce any valid documents in support of his claim, and it was therefore concluded that he has no valid title or lawful claim over the Government land in question. As no material evidence was submitted by the petitioner to support his occupation, a direction under Section 6 of the A.P.L.E. Act was issued, requiring him to vacate the Government land. 12. It is also submitted that the petitioner, aggrieved by the eviction notice issued vide Proceedings No. C/1516/2010, dated 10.04.2012, filed W.P. No. 13492 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Hyderabad. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide Appeal No. B/1400/2017, dated 17.04.2017. 13. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Hyderabad. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide Appeal No. B/1400/2017, dated 17.04.2017. 13. He further contends that the official respondents have never attempted to dispossess the petitioner unlawfully. The petitioner encroached upon the subject land and had erected a shutter from which he was conducting business by selling sweaters and bed sheets. This encroachment was removed. 14. It is submitted that the land has remained under the custody of the Government and is registered in the Government Land Bank under Entry No.996. A letter was also addressed to the ACP, Panjagutta, vide Letter No. C/1522/2010, dated 27.11.2010, requesting the registration of an FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.108 of 2021, dated 24.02.2021, was registered against the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner is in the habit of encroaching upon Government land through various means and has been filing false and frivolous cases against Government officials. He, therefore, seeks disposal of the Writ Petition in terms of the above submissions. 16. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent submits that the 4 th respondent is only a formal party to the proceedings and would abide by the stand taken by the 3rd respondent. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in obtaining relief despite filing multiple writ petitions seeking different reliefs in respect of the same subject property. 18. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, wherein it is stated that the official respondents have not attempted to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, and without making any observations regarding the petitioner’s possession or dispossession from the subject property, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to make a detail representation before the official respondent/competent authority, along with original documents, if any, to substantiate his claim over the property, as a last opportunity, since his earlier application for regularization has already been rejected by the District Level Committee. 19. 19. Upon filing such representation, 3 rd respondent- Tahsildar shall pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 20. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the aspect of the petitioner’s possession or entitlement to possession over the subject property. 21. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.