Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 166

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Benki Shanker S/o Lingam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1496 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D JAGAN MOHAN REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

A party cannot challenge government actions concerning land possession without first addressing required legal procedures and notices properly issued by the authorities.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 - Review of possession claims - Writ of Mandamus sought to challenge illegal interference by government in land possession - Court upheld actions of respondents regarding land designation as government property and confirmed that appellant's claims lack legal grounding. (Paras 1, 15, and 26)

(B) Administrative Law - Right to notice - Appellant contended lack of notice before land possession actions taken by government - Court ruled that lawful procedures were followed and appellant failed to challenge necessary proceedings, thus affirming the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 1, 12, 22, and 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant purchased and possessed 960 sq. yards of land, authorized through respective governmental procedures, but faced interference from governmental entities claiming it was public land. In earlier proceedings, the court had directed non-interference without due process, yet subsequent actions led to a petition being filed by the appellant.

Findings of Court:
Court confirmed the land was designated as government property and noted that the appellant had contested without legally addressing proceedings that led to government actions. The learned Single Judge found that sufficient notice and legal grounds were established for the government's actions.

Issues: The core issues were the legality of the government’s claim to the land and whether the appellant had the right to challenge without appropriate legal action against previous notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to due process law, affirming that the appellant had failed to demonstrate legal grounds to contrary the government’s claim of possession over the land.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. possession and ownership claims of the appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. respondents' claims regarding land status and actions taken. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's rationale for dismissing the writ petition. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23)
4. confirmation of learned single judge's decision. (Para 21 , 24)
5. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 25 , 26)

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. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document