SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17853

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J
Nama Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19674 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not specified
For the Respondents: Not specified

Administrative actions affecting land possession must adhere to due process and cannot be based on unverified claims of document forgery.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review of administrative actions - The action of the respondents issuing notices and altering possession of property in questions of Grama Kantam land - The court held the nature of the property should remain unchanged until the investigation resolution - Court ruled that unverified accusations of document forgery cannot justify dispossession without due process. (Paras 2, 6, 7)

(B) Property Rights - Claims of ownership based on executed gift deeds - The evidence of occupancy and house ownership was challenged by the respondents - Court noted that while there were allegations of forged documents, no definitive conclusions were drawn; possession claims require adjudication by civil court. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested notices claiming their land is illegally taken and the respondent’s action as arbitrary, alongside evidence including realized ownership documents. They insist that the disputed property is not Gram Panchayat land and Geama Kantam land is presently not government property.

Findings of Court:
The court finds no houses present on the land, but calls for due process in considering submitted property documents and cautioned against altering the property without ensuring proper legal resolution.

Issues: The legality of the notices issued against the petitioners and the validity of claims over Grama Kantam land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that property disputes require resolution through civil courts, not administrative decisions based merely on allegations without substantiated closure; alteration of possession must follow legal due course.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to not change the nature of property.

Table of Content
1. challenge to administrative notices regarding land possession. (Para 1)
2. claims of property ownership and possession established. (Para 2)
3. interim orders regarding existing property status. (Para 3)
4. responses and accusations regarding fraudulent documentation. (Para 4)
5. investigation into claims of documentation fraud. (Para 5)
6. need for clarity on property status without fabricating evidence. (Para 6)
7. order to maintain existing conditions pending investigation. (Para 7)

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notices dt.04.07.2023 and 12.07.2023 to the 2nd petitioner and in not considering the explanations offered by the 2nd petitioner dt.07.07.2023 and 15.07.2023 respectively and in not taking into consideration that the subject property has been transferred in the name of the 2nd petitioner by the 1st petitioner vide gift deeds Document Nos.8199 of 2022, 8200 of 2022, 8201 of 2022, 8202 of 2022 and 8203 of 2022 all dt.13.09.2022 and in dumping a container house in the 2nd petitioner’s property by erecting a name board in the name of “Telangana Kreeda Pranganam”, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ house plots in total to an extent of 1500 square yards situated at Ummapur Village, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the 1st petitioner has filed the writ affidavit stating that the 2nd petitioner and his father were in possession of the Grama Kantam land for a long time without interruption from anybody except the unofficial respondents, i.e., respondents No.6 to 10. It is submitted that there was personal grudge developed by the 5th respondent towards the 2nd petitioner as the 2nd petitioner had made a complaint against him before the official respondents for misappropriation of funds of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, he tried to interfere with the possession of the subject property of the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner and his father were living in the subject land and that the 2nd petitioner had constructed a house and a cattle shed therein and the Gram Panchayat has also issued house numbers and the petitioners are paying the house tax. It is submitted that the said house got damaged and due to old age, the 2nd petitioner has executed registered gift deeds in favour of the 1st petitioner and the possession has been delivered to her and that the Gram Panchayat has also allotted house numbers for the subject house plots and that the 1st petitioner is paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the unofficial respondents had demanded for sale of the house plots to them and since the 1st petitioner refused to sell the same, they have made a complaint against the 2nd petitioner to the 2nd respondent alleging that he has occupied the Grama Kantam land and accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the

2nd petitioner on 04.07.2023 to which the 2nd petitioner has submitted his explanation on 07.07.2023 along with relevant documents. It is stated that another notice dt.12.07.2023 was also issued to the 2nd petitioner, who submitted his explanation on 15.07.2023 and thereafter, no orders have been passed thereon. In the meantime, when the unofficial respondents tried to occupy the subject land, the 1st petitioner has approached the civil Court by filing O.S.No.111 of 2023 and an ad interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.278 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Devarakonda. It is submitted that thereafter, the official respondents have dumped an iron container in the petitioners’ land by erecting a board in the name of “Telangana Kreeda Pranganam” and therefore, the petitioners lodged a police complaint, but since the police did not take any action, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top