HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
Smt. Veeragoni Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.9297 of 2016
Decided On : 12-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim ownership of agricultural land. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioners accused of illegal excavation. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. respondents argue against petitioners' claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. dispute over land classification and usage. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court emphasizes legal boundaries for excavation. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. court's directive on lawful excavation and orders. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
The Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the patta agricultural lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.1551 admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.21 ¾ gts belongs to the 1st petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No.2007 and land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts belongs to the 2nd petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No. 2078 situated at Garrepalli revenue village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law.”
2. There is no representation on behalf of petitioner.
3. Since matter pertains to year 2016, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournments. On last occasion also, when the matter was called, there was no appearance on behalf of petitioner.
4. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.1551 and land admeasuring Ac.2.21 ¾ gts in Sy.No.1552/2, situated at Garrepalli Revenue Village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar, vide sale deed bearing document No.2353/2008, dated 22.09.2008 and sale deed bearing document No.1415/2013, dated 26.04.2013.
5. That petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in Sy.No.1552/2 situated in same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2017/2012, dated 12.07.2012. Petitioner No.2 also purchased an additional extent of land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in the same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2238/2012, dated 20.07.2012.
6. It is further the case of petitioners that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural lands in the said survey numbers and that they have been cultivating these lands. They contend that their properties are not under submergence and they have been cultivating seasonal agricultural crops. According to petitioners, the Revenue Authorities are illegally interfering with petitioners’ properties and issued notice. A notice dated 13.11.2015, annexed as Ex.P1, was issued by the office of Tahsildar, Sultanabad to petitioner No.2. The contents of the notice reflect that in a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspectors and Village Revenue Officer dated 13.11.2015 states that on 15.10.2015, the petitioners used a Tata Hitachi Poclainer for removing soil from Pedda Cheruvu, Garrepalli Sultanaband Mandal, Karimnagar District. In the notice, it is further reflected that on enquiry, it came to know that poclainer belonged to one Sri Ramulu, MPTC, Mokdampur and that the petitioners requested Sri Ramulu for removing the soil. Hence, the report.
7. Basing on this report, Tahsildar issued a notice asking the petitioners to explain as to how they have used the poclainer to remove the soil from Pedda Cheruvu (Shikam land) without any permission. It was also stated that if no explanation was offered, criminal action would be initiated.
8. An explanation, dated 17.11.2015 (Ex.P2) was submitted by petitioner No.2. In the explanation, petitioner No.2 stated that he was excavating soil from his own patta land and was only levelling the land for agricultural purpose. It is also stated in explanation that the land in which excavatio
AI
Petitioners have the right to excavate soil from their patta lands but not from tank beds, with due legal process required for any alleged violations.
The removal of accumulated silt from tank beds under 'Mission Kakatiya' is lawful, provided it does not dispossess landowners, who are entitled to notice before such actions.
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to prevent the State from excavating gravel from their land because they had suppressed the fact that the land was taken over by the State in 201....
A party cannot challenge government actions concerning land possession without first addressing required legal procedures and notices properly issued by the authorities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.