Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1760 (TS)

Motteli Rama Naga Sunitha v. State of Telanagana

2025-12-09

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Mr.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for Singareni Collieries and Mr.Somaiah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and jperused the material available on record. 3. Since challenge in all the writ petitions is to G.O.Ms.No.76 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.07.2019 and since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is one and the same, the facts in W.P.No.3712 of 2025 will hereinafter be referred to for deciding all the above writ petitions. 4. Petitioners in the above writ petition are aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in rejecting their on-line application submitted under G.O.Ms.No.76 of 2019 which was contemplated to regularize the occupancies of the individual possessions and to grant title deeds and pattas on certain conditions for the reason that the subject land in each of their cases is an un-surrendered (SCCL) Government land. 5. The petitioners contend that the entire town of Kothagudem was originally a Government property and during the British rule it was leased out to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCCL’). While so, vast extents of lands i.e. 358 acres approximately in Sy.Nos.141, 142 and 143 of Kothagudem were mostly occupied by the individuals for their livelihood and survival, though the same were leased out to the SCCL. All the petitioners have been in possession of the said lands much prior to issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 11.07.2019. The SCCL sublet portions of the lands in the above said survey numbers to banks, individuals and institutions etc. Subsequently, the RDO who was made in-charge of the committed which was constituted to provide basic necessities to the people living in the aforesaid 358 acres of land allotted house numbers and started collecting property taxes from the dwellers. 6. While so, during the British regime, some people have migrated to Kothagudem for eking out their livelihood. Later on, in view of the establishment of coal mines they commenced their small and petty businesses there by occupying some open lands and by constructing houses and are living there. They are paying property taxes to Kothagudem Municipality. 6. While so, during the British regime, some people have migrated to Kothagudem for eking out their livelihood. Later on, in view of the establishment of coal mines they commenced their small and petty businesses there by occupying some open lands and by constructing houses and are living there. They are paying property taxes to Kothagudem Municipality. They have also been provided civic amenities such as water and electricity connections. Over a period of time, the Government has developed the roads and suitable infrastructure. By virtue of longstanding occupation, they have perfected their right and title over the property. 7. As the things stood thus, the SCCL surrendered most of the lands to the Government which was in their possession and enjoyment. The Government, after due deliberation, had issued several G.Os contemplating regularization of the lands in favour of the occupants at a particular charge and to issue conveyance deeds. In the said process the State of Telangana had issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 11.7.2019 modifying the earlier G.Os with a view to give perfect title with alienable rights as well. Since the officials have not considered the representations of the petitioners for regularization and since they apprehend dispossession, the petitioners filed writ petitions seeking injunction against the SCCL. The said writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the SCCL not to dispossess except under due process of law. The petitioners further submit that they filed another individual writ petitions seeking directions to the revenue officials to consider their on-line applications which were disposed of with a direction to the official respondents therein to dispose of the representations of the petitioners. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners the said representations were rejected on the sole ground that the SCCL has not surrendered these plots / houses and hence the applications under the G.O.Ms.No.76 cannot be accepted. 8. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners the said representations were rejected on the sole ground that the SCCL has not surrendered these plots / houses and hence the applications under the G.O.Ms.No.76 cannot be accepted. 8. Hence the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the Clause 7 of the G.O.Ms.No.76 of 2019 dated 11.7.2019 saying that “to invite new applications for regularization of residential and commercial units of encroached Government land which were handed over by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (CCL) to the respective District Collectors as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to strike down the impugned portion and thereby consider the regularization of the respective plots / houses of the petitioners as per the rest of the conditions laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.76 of 2019 dated 11.7.2019. 9. Upon filing of the writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 08.4.2025 ordered status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained in respect of the subject property, in all respects. 10. Refuting the contentions / allegations made by the writ petitioners the SCCL filed counter affidavit. The stand of the SCCL is that in the year 1927 the then Nizam Government granted mining lease for over 29,289 hectares of area for the purpose of mining and other allied activities by the SCCL. The Sy.Nos.141, 142 and 143 of Kothagudem are covered under the mining lease. As per the terms and conditions of the mining lease, the land in the above said survey numbers are under occupation and utilization of the SCCL. The mining lease was subsequently renewed over an extent of 5158 Hectares of area and the lease is valid up to 26.4.2029. 11. It is further submitted that the SCCL has surrendered certain land in Sy.Nos.141, 142 and 143 of Kothagudem village to the State Government and the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.3.2005 stipulating certain procedure for regularization of 6652 pending applications. Accordingly, the eligible encroachers were regularized. But the petitioners are claiming in non-surrendered land. The petitioners have constructed temporary residential sheds in between the residential quarters in Burma Camp colony in small vacant portion of land and that land is needed for reconstruction of the company quarters, as such, that area was not surrendered by the SCCL to the State Government. But the petitioners are claiming in non-surrendered land. The petitioners have constructed temporary residential sheds in between the residential quarters in Burma Camp colony in small vacant portion of land and that land is needed for reconstruction of the company quarters, as such, that area was not surrendered by the SCCL to the State Government. Hence, the applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of encroachments under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 11.7.2019 was rejected by the revenue officials. 12. It is further submitted that certain unused land which is not required for future purposes of the SCCL was handed over to the Government and the Government has allotted the same for common public utility purposes and also regularized in favour of eligible encroachers in the surrendered land. However, the lands in Sy.Nos.141, 142 and 143 of Kothagudem village are in possession and usage of the SCCL since 1927 and thereafter certain portion of unused land was surrendered to Government and certain portion of land in the above said survey numbers is required for different activities of the SCCL like offices, residential quarters for the employees of the SCCL, educational institutions, hospitals and medical usage and other common public utility purposes and that those areas are under possession of the SCCL. Hence those areas which are meant for the purposes as stated above cannot be surrendered to the Government. As such any claims by the encroachers in the land which is not surrendered by the SCCL cannot be considered under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.76. 13. It is further submitted that the residential quarters were constructed long back and that they are in a dilapidated condition (not fit for living) and hence the SCCL proposed to demolish the old quarters and reconstruct new blocks in the same locality. In the proposed area there are about 15 illegal encroachments in small vacant pieces of land, some are in between quarter to quarter and some are in corner areas of lines which are required to be shifted / removed. The encroachers were given an opportunity to provide alternative accommodation. Some encroachers have agreed to the said proposal, but some have not. The encroachers were given an opportunity to provide alternative accommodation. Some encroachers have agreed to the said proposal, but some have not. However, the encroachers filed individual writ petitions in the year 2023 praying not to dispossess them from the existing encroached places of the SCCL and all those writ petitions were disposed of with a specific direction to the SCCL to provide alternative accommodation as was provided to five other private persons who have shifted from the same location. But the petitioners have not approached the SCCL as per the directions of the Hon’ble Court within a stipulated time even after issuing of repeated notices by the SCCL. 14. It is further submitted that the petitioners have again approached this Hon’ble Court in the year 2024 seeking to direct the respondents therein to consider their application as per the G.O.Ms.No.76 for regularization of residential houses in Burma Camp, Kothagudem and grant them pattas for the respective properties in their occupation. Those writ petitions were also disposed directing the District Collector of Bhadradri Kothagudem to examine the feasibility of considering the pending applications in consonance with the impugned G.O.No.76. The District Collector issued a Memo dated 03.02.2025 to all the petitioners stating that the subject land is the un-surrendered land of the SCCL and hence the applications for regularization of the subject land cannot be considered under the G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 11.7.2019. Hence the SCCL prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Respondent No.4 in the writ petition, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem filed counter affidavit on behalf of the official respondents. The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare Clause 7 of G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 11.07.2019, which permits the invitation of new applications for regularization of residential and commercial units on encroached Government lands handed over by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) to District Collectors, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. It is further submitted that nine of the twelve petitioners had earlier filed individual writ petitions in 2023 seeking protection from dispossession. The Hon’ble High Court, vide orders passed in August 2024, directed the Respondent No.2 (SCCL) to provide alternative accommodation. However, the petitioners failed to avail of the same despite repeated notices. Subsequently, eleven of them again approached the Court in the year 2024 seeking regularization of encroached lands under G.O.Ms.No.76. The Hon’ble High Court, vide orders passed in August 2024, directed the Respondent No.2 (SCCL) to provide alternative accommodation. However, the petitioners failed to avail of the same despite repeated notices. Subsequently, eleven of them again approached the Court in the year 2024 seeking regularization of encroached lands under G.O.Ms.No.76. Those writ petitions were disposed of in September, 2024 with a direction to the District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem, to pass reasoned orders. Accordingly, the Collector, vide Memo dated 03.02.2025, rejected the applications, clarifying that the subject land remains with SCCL and is not eligible for regularization under the said G.O. It is submitted that the land in question forms part of the mining lease granted in 1927 by the then Nizam Government to SCCL over 29,289 hectares in Sy.Nos.141, 142, and 143 of Kothagudem Village, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The lease, currently renewed for 5,158 hectares, is valid until 26.04.2029. Hence, the land remains under lawful occupation and use by SCCL. The petitioners are mere encroachers without any vested or legal rights. Payment of local taxes does not confer ownership or regularization entitlement. The petitioners have erected temporary and unauthorized structures within SCCL’s colony area, which is earmarked for redevelopment of new residential quarters for SCCL employees. Despite opportunities for relocation to alternative accommodation, the petitioners have repeatedly approached this Hon’ble Court on identical grounds to obstruct the company’s lawful construction work. The Government, through G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 11.07.2019, authorized regularization only in respect of lands surrendered by SCCL to the Government. As the subject land has not been surrendered and remains required for SCCL operations, the petitioners’ claims fall outside the purview of the said G.O. Without prejudice, SCCL reiterates its readiness to provide alternate accommodation purely on humanitarian grounds, notwithstanding the petitioners’ unauthorized occupation. 16. It is further submitted that on the representations of local public representatives and after careful examination, the Government has issued the impugned G.O wherein the District Collectors were specifically directed to regularize the lands located within the area which has been surrendered by the SCCL. In the present case, the SCCL did not surrender the subject lands and that since the said lands are required for the use of the SCCL, the company has not surrendered the subject lands. The subject lands where the petitioners are claiming are falling within the domain of the SCCL. In the present case, the SCCL did not surrender the subject lands and that since the said lands are required for the use of the SCCL, the company has not surrendered the subject lands. The subject lands where the petitioners are claiming are falling within the domain of the SCCL. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim relief under the impugned G.O. Hence the petitioners do not deserve any relief in these writ petitions. It is further submitted that since the SCCL is ready to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners even though they are considered to be illegal encroachers and not having any valid rights, they can at best approach the SCCL and take the shelter in the accommodation being provided by the SCCL whether it be a permanent or temporary. But they cannot take any advantage or challenge the impugned G.O. 17. Reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that SCCL cannot surrender the land which is not in its possession and it can surrender only that land which was in its possession and enjoyment. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that all the lands that are occupied by the individuals are Government lands having been leased out to SCCL, as such, the impugned G.O. saying that only those lands that are surrendered by the SCCL would be regularized in favour of the individuals is absolutely meaningless and the very purpose of the G.O is totally defeated and none could get the relief, unless the SCCL says that it has surrendered the lands. 18. It is his predominant contention that the SCCL is taking undue advantage of the clause in the impugned G.O and now claiming that they have not surrendered these particular land pieces. The SCCL still holds vast extent of lands around the city of Kothagudem and other places and these small pieces of plots are not really required by the SCCL at any point of time. Even now as well the SCCL does not require the subject lands and even if at all they require, it is the responsibility of the SCCL to provide the petitioners the alternate permanent houses and not temporary houses. 19. Even now as well the SCCL does not require the subject lands and even if at all they require, it is the responsibility of the SCCL to provide the petitioners the alternate permanent houses and not temporary houses. 19. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan , (1997) 11 SCC 121 and Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P . (1996) 2 SCC 549 . 20. On the other hand, the Mr.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for Singareni Collieries relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2011) 11 SCC 396 and State of Tamil Nadu vs. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association , (2021) 15 SCC 534 . 21. The contention of the petitioners is that during the British regime, some people have migrated to Kothagudem for eking out their livelihood. Later on, in view of the establishment of coal mines they commenced their small and petty businesses there by occupying some open lands and by constructing houses and are living there. They are paying property taxes to Kothagudem Municipality. They have also been provided civic amenities such as water and electricity connections. Over a period of time, the Government has developed the roads and suitable infrastructure. By virtue of longstanding occupation, they have perfected their right and title over the property. 22. But it is the settled principle of law that paying property taxes alone does not confer any right, title, or interest in a property. The Supreme Court of India time and again has consistently reiterated that paying land taxes or a mutation entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purposes and does not create or extinguish property ownership rights. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any ownership rights on the subject lands since, so far, their occupation on the subject lands has not been recognized by way of giving any pattas in their names. All the more, they can be treated or considered as encroachers or settlers. 23. Coming to the challenge in these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that by incorporating the clause in para No.7 of the impugned G.O. defeated their right for regularization. For better appreciation the Clause 7 of the impugned G.O. is extracted hereunder: “7. All the more, they can be treated or considered as encroachers or settlers. 23. Coming to the challenge in these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that by incorporating the clause in para No.7 of the impugned G.O. defeated their right for regularization. For better appreciation the Clause 7 of the impugned G.O. is extracted hereunder: “7. Now, therefore, Government, after careful consideration of the matter and in partial modification of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.171, dated 19.7.2017, G.O.Ms.No.224, dated 03.10.2017, G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 05.9.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 05.9.2018 hereby delete the condition of 10 years time limit as mentioned under BPL Category and permit the Collectors, Khammam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem, Jayashankar Bhoopalpally, Komaram Bheem Asifabad, Adilabad, Mancherial, Peddapalli and Jagitial Districts to invite new applications for regularization of residential and commercial units of encroached Government land which were handed over by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) to the respective District Collectors, for a period of 6 months, from the date of issue of these orders, duly following the procedure adopted in G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assn.I) Dept., Dt:30.12.2014 subject to payment of the following revised rates.” (Underlined by me) 24. The Government has framed the guidelines how to capture the entire process online in G.O.Ms.Nos.58 and 59, dated 30.12.2014. 25. Insofar as the intention of the SCCL to retain the land and not surrendering the subject lands is within the domain of the SCCL. No one, including the Court, can direct the SCCL to surrender certain land and retain certain land. It is the SCCL to take a decision as to which part of the land to be surrendered and which part of the land is to be retained for its purpose. So far as the clause (underlined above) is concerned, it is the policy decision of the Government. 26. The case of the official respondents is that on the representations of local public representatives and after careful examination, the Government has issued the impugned G.O by evolving a policy decision wherein the District Collectors were specifically directed to regularize the lands located within the area which has been surrendered by the SCCL. 27. It is to be noted that Courts do not act as an appellate authority to examine the correctness, suitability, or wisdom of a policy decision itself, as this falls under the executive's domain. The judiciary primarily focuses on the legality and procedural fairness of the decision-making process. 27. It is to be noted that Courts do not act as an appellate authority to examine the correctness, suitability, or wisdom of a policy decision itself, as this falls under the executive's domain. The judiciary primarily focuses on the legality and procedural fairness of the decision-making process. Courts review the legality of policies, not their correctness or suitability, ensuring they don't violate fundamental rights, statutes, or are not manifestly arbitrary. Courts should not intrude on policy decisions and are not equipped to judge such matters, but must ensure no laws or fundamental rights are violated. 28. In fact, the Government in the earlier G.Os, has given importance for the welfare of the persons who have encroached the lands. It is also the contention of the RDO that the petitioners are illegal encroachers with small and temporary huts in vacant pieces of land available between the SCCL quarters colony area and that the said quarters were constructed long back and all those quarters are old and in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the management of the SCCL decided to remove old quarters and to reconstruct new quarters for the purpose of residential accommodation of the employees and that around 14 temporary residential private illegal sheds are falling within the proposed area which are required to be evicted / removed to enable the SCCL for reconstruction of the new quarters. 29. In that view of the matter, since the location of the pieces of land where the petitioners are said to have been living in, is falling within the residential zone of the SCCL, the SCCL could not surrender the said land, for, it contemplates to reconstruct residential quarters to its employees. Since the said land is required for its own purpose of SCCL and was not handed over to the Government, the claim of the petitioners does not fall within the parameters of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.76. Since the land in question is required for the proprietary purposes of SCCL and has not been handed over to the Government, the petitioners’ claim for regularization of the said land in their favour does not fall within the scope of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.76. The petitioners cannot seek a direction from this Court either to compel SCCL to surrender a specific parcel of and or to require the State to regularize their possession of land to which they have no legal entitlement. The petitioners cannot seek a direction from this Court either to compel SCCL to surrender a specific parcel of and or to require the State to regularize their possession of land to which they have no legal entitlement. As the petitioners’ claim cannot be considered in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the impugned Government Order, as such, they are not entitled to any relief under these writ petitions. 30. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (supra) is a case of pavement dwellers in unauthorized occupation of footpaths of the Rakhial road in Ahmedabad, which is a main road, whereon they constructed small huts. When the huts were sought to be removed by the municipal Corporation, the hutmen approached the High Court. In the present case, the pieces of land where they constructed their houses is not a public place. It is the land of the SCCL. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the said case stand on a different footing than the present case. Similarly, the facts in Chameli Singh case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 31. From a perusal of the record as well as the contentions of the learned counsel for the SCCL and the learned Government Pleader, it is manifest that the SCCL has expressed its willingness to allot alternative accommodation to the petitioners to be accommodated in a nearby company’s quarters in the same location as provided to other residents. Therefore, the petitioners can as well approach the SCCL and pursue their grievance there and no positive direction can be given to the State in the backdrop of the present case. 32. With the above observations all these writ petitions are dismissed, granting liberty to all the petitioners herein to approach the SCCL for redressal of their grievance and it is for the SCCL to consider the same according to the norms. Till such time parties to all these writ petitions shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today in all aspects. No order as to costs. 33. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these writ petitions shall stand closed.