Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 2 (TS)

Benki Shanker S/o Lingam v. State of Telangana

2026-01-05

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2026
JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The present Appeal arising out of order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17657 of 2025 filed by the appellant/petitioner herein seeking a prayer in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with peaceful possession of the appellant by excavating part of the land admeasuring 960 sq. yards in Plot Nos.3, 4, 11 and 12 situated in Sy.Nos.22/1, 22/3, 27/A and 37/AA of Kotarmoor Village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad District without any notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner and possessor of House No.1-26/43/1 in land admeasuring 960 sq. yards in Plot Nos.3, 4, 11 and 12 situated in Sy.Nos.22/1, 22/3, 27/A and 37/11 situated at Kotarmoor village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad District (subject property), having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2011 bearing Doc.No.2344 of 2011 from P.Rajeshwar Reddy, P.Veda Prakash Reddy and B.Mamatha, and ever since the purchase, the appellant has been in peaceful possession of the said land without any interference from anybody. 3. It is the further case of the appellant that originally, the vendors of appellant were the owners and possessors of large extents of agricultural lands in Sy.No.21/A admeasuring Ac.4.07 gts belonging to P.Rajeshwar Reddy, agricultural land in Sy.No37/A admeasuring Ac.0.4.5 gts and Sy.No.37/AA admeasuring Ac.0.09 gts (total admeasuring Ac.0.13.5 gts) in Kotarmoor village, Armoor Mandal, Perkit Gram Panchayat, Nizamabad District. It is the further case of appellant that his vendors have converted the aforesaid land from agricultural to Non-agricultural land vide Proceeding No.A3/5542/2010 dated 13.10.2010 and A3/5543/2010 dated 13.10.2010 under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. It is the case of the appellant that the office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad issued Demarcation Certificate dated 24.12.2010 along with a map stating that no Government land is included in the proposed layout, and later the vendors of appellant have obtained layout approval vide letter dated 24.02.2011 through L.P.No.07/2011/HRO of the Regional Deputy Director, Town Country Planning. 5. It is the further case of appellant that the he constructed a house in the subject property after obtaining necessary permission dt.15.12.2017 and has been in peaceful possession of the property any interference. 5. It is the further case of appellant that the he constructed a house in the subject property after obtaining necessary permission dt.15.12.2017 and has been in peaceful possession of the property any interference. However, on 16.06.2025, few individuals, claiming to be from the office of respondent Nos.4 to 6 attempted to start digging in the land of the appellant, and on strong resistance, the said persons left the place. On 17.06.2025, the said individuals along with others again forcefully entered into appellant’s land and started digging the land and attempted to lay down a pipeline over the private land of the appellant and excavated a portion of entrance area to a width of approximately two feet, thereby severing the access between the land of appellant and main road. Also deposited large heaps of earth at the side effectively, obstructing ingress and egress to the property. Therefore, the appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking declaration that the said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Respondent No.5 filed counter-affidavit in the Writ Petition stating that canal D-82/2/1/2 has became defunct before 40-50 years and as per the directions of the District Collector, Nizamabad in 2022, joint survey of the defunct canals was conducted to demarcate the canal boundary of the defunct canals and after conducting Survey, the District Collector has instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Armoor to take up fencing activity all along the defunct canals to safeguard the Government property and to take up plantation in the area under ‘Haritha Haram Programme’. 7. It is further contended that in view of the aforesaid directions, when fencing activity was started from the end point of the sub-minor canal D-82/2/1/2 of Nizamsagar canal on 01.11.2022, the encroachers have objected to fencing and one Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna has removed the erected poles and closed the pits. In this regard, the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Sub-Division No.02, Armoor lodged a complaint against Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna before the Armoor P.S. The said Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna also filed W.P.No.40373 of 2022 and Criminal Petition No.9985 of 2022 in this Court, and this Court vide order dated 02.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.40373 of 2022 directed the respondents not to interfere with appellant’s possession over the subject property without following due process of law and also granted liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law by issuing notice to the appellant. 8. 8. It is further contended that as per the directions of this Court, the Tahsildar, Armoor issued notice dated 22.11.2024 to Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 calling for explanation. In compliance of the said notice, Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna submitted his explanation, and after conducting hearing on 28.11.2024 and 11.12.2024 in the presence of Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna and Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Armoor, the Tahsildar, Armoor issued orders dated 13.12.2024 for eviction of encroachments in Irrigation defunct Canal Boundary of D-82/2/1/2 of Kotha Armoor (V) to Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna for encroaching irrigation land adjacent to Sy.No.22/1, 40/1 and 40/2 to an extent of Ac.1.36 gts. 9. It is further contended that aggrieved by the orders of Tahsildar, Armoor, Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna filed an appeal petition before the District Collector, Nizamabad under Section 10 of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, wherein the District Collector, Nizamabad directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Armoor, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation to conduct joint survey, and accordingly a report was submitted by the concerned to the District Collector, Nizamabad. Thereafter, the District Collector heard the matter on 15.03.2025, 29.03.2025, 11.04.2025 and 16.05.2025 has passed orders observing that Bogadameedi Pedda Bajannahas has encroached the land to an extent of Ac.037 gts adjacent to Sy.No.22/1 and Ac.1.01 gts adjacent to Sy.No.40/1 of canal land belongs to Irrigation Department and upheld the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Armoor dated 01.012.2024 and thereby dismissed the Appeal filed by Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna. 10. The respondents without disputing the purchase of land by appellant to an extent of 960 sq. yards in Plot Nos.3, 4, 11 and 12 situated in Sy.Nos.22/1, 22/3, 27/A and 37/AA of Kotarmur village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad District under sale deed dated 28.06.2011, contended that the said sale does not confer any legal right or entitlement to occupy land forming part of the Nizamsagar Canal, which is Government land, without any survey number. The respondents also disputed the assertion of appellant with regard to survey conducted by the office of the Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad, and submits that the said survey was conducted without notice to the Irrigation Department and as such, the Demarcation Certificate is not binding on the said Department and subsequently joint survey has confirmed the encroachment, irrespective of past layout assumptions. 11. 11. The respondents contended that the layout approval obtained by the anterior vendors of the appellant, was issued without NOC from the Irrigation Department and as such, said Layout approval is not being on the Irrigation Department. 12. The respondents also denied the allegation of appellant of their interference with peaceful enjoyment of appellant of subject property, and contended that digging of the trench along with the boundary was done as per the Joint Survey Report and no debris was thrown on anyone’s private land and that the respondents are following the process of law. It is further contended that it is for the appellant to seek clarification regarding the boundaries of land he is claiming from the competent Authority. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 13. Before the learned Single Judge, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the land in question has been converted from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural land vide proceedings dated 13.10.2010 under the Act and that demarcation has also been done and demarcation certificate dated 14.12.2010 along with map has been issued stating that no Government land is included in the proposed layout and layout permission has been given vide proceedings dt.24.02.2011 through Regional Deputy Director, Town Country Planning and that respondent No.4 has never interfered with the subject property. It was further contended that a joint inspection was conducted and inconsequential action, the subject land was taken into possession by the official respondents in the presence of Panchas and as such, the question of interference does not arise. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended before the learned Single Judge that most of the material aspects were not brought to the notice of the Court and that the appellant has not challenged the proceedings issued by the District Collector dated 28.05.2025. 15. Basing on the above elaborate contentions and considering the material on record, learned Single Judge held that the land in question has been taken into physical possession of the official respondents by conducting panchanama and that the impugned proceedings issued by the District Collector in Case No.E2/34/2025 dated 28.05.2025 are not challenged by the appellant, thereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. 16. 16. Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not given any notice before passing the impugned order, but the learned Single Judge without waiting for the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Revenue Department, dismissed the Writ Petition. 17. On the other hand, Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that written instructions were placed before the Court and basing on the written instructions that land in question was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture land on 13.10.2010 and by proceedings dated 28.05.2025, a joint survey has been conducted and accordingly, in the consequential action, the land has been taken into possession of official respondents in the presence of panchas, and as such, the appellant has no right to challenge the action of the official respondents. It is further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge holds good by not interfering with the proceedings. 18. Ms.Shanthi Neelam, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent No.5 contended that the land in question pertains to Canal No.D-82/2/1/2 has became defunct before 40-50 years and as per the directions of the District Collector, Nizamabad in 2022, joint Survey of defunct canals was conducted to demarcate the canal boundary of the defunct canals. Therefore, the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 belongs to Irrigation Department, and therefore sought to dismissed the Writ Appeal. 19. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions urged on either side, and perused the record. 20. A perusal of the proceedings passed by the Tahsildar, Armoor dated 13.12.2024 indicates that hearing was conducted on 28.11.2024 and basing on the report submitted against Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna reveal that the land for formation of Nizamsagar Canal System was acquired in early 1990s i.e. before conducting the land Survey in the erstwhile state and survey numbers were issued leaving aside the lands acquired for Nizam Sagar Canals, and that Nizamsagar Canals were given the numbers for Distributory, Sub-Distributory, Minors, Sub-Minors etc. and does not have any survey numbers. and does not have any survey numbers. As per Block Map No.10/15, which was drawn in the year 1961, it is clear that there is a sub-Minor Canal D-82/2/1/2 passing adjacent to Survey Numbers of Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna i.e. 22/1, 40/1 and 40/2, LP No.08/09/HRO/H of Sy.No.16, 22/1, 22/2, 20/B and 21, and in the revenue village map also the said Minor Canal can be verified as adjacent to the said survey numbers. The said proceedings further indicate that due to urbanization of the tail end ayacut in Armoor, Perkit and Kotarmoor village, the canals have become defunct and no trace of the canal is visible at many places, but the same does not give any right to any individual to encroach into the valuable canal land acquired by the Government long back. It is further mentioned that as per the joint survey conducted by the Survey, Revenue, Irrigation and Municipal Departments to protect the valuable Government property, fencing arrangements were undertaken. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Armoor directed the Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna to vacate the occupied canal boundary within seven days from the date of said proceedings. The said proceeding was addressed to the vendors’ vendor of appellant i.e. Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna. 21. Aggrieved by the same, Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna preferred an appeal to the District Collector, Nizamabad, wherein it was directed that in terms of the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.40373 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 viz., “The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property without following due process of law and further they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law by issuing notices to the petitioner..’, and as per the said direction, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division No.02, Armoor furnished the list of encroachers, who have encroached Irrigation land situated at Kotarmoor village and requested the Tahsildar, Armoor to issue notice to the encroachers under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the Tahsildar has followed the due procedure in accordance with the said Act and issued notices to the Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna and passed a reasoned eviction order dated 13.12.2024 for eviction of encroachments. Therefore, after providing the opportunity of hearing on 15.03.2025, 29.03.2025, 11.04.2025 and 16.05.2025, the District Collector, Armoor confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Armoor vide proceedings dated 13.12.2024 and dismissed the Appeal holding that Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna has encroached the land to an extent of Ac.0.37 gts adjacent to Sy.No.22/1 and Ac.1.01 gts adjacent to Sy.No.40/1 of canal land belonging to Irrigation Department. 22. Admittedly, the appellant has not assailed the proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.05.2025 by way of appropriate proceeding. On the other hand, the prayer sought in the Writ Petition with regard to interference of appellant’s peaceful possession of land would not fall under within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the appellant has any grievance against his vendors, he is at liberty to pursue the same under appropriate remedies available under law. 23. Since, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are basing on the disputed questions of facts, and as the appellant had not challenged the proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.05.2025, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. 24. In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the Writ Petition. 25. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with or set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.11.2025 in W.P.No.17657 of 2025. 26. W.A.No.1496 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.