HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.24066 OF 2025

ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice

bearing No. B/273/2025 dated 18.06.2025, issued by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District, under Section 7 of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short,

‘L.A.Act’).

2. The petitioner claims to have been assigned plot with

measurements 35 x 50 feet in Survey No.72 situated at Battisawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District, vide proceedings in R.C. No. B/517/2015 dated 09.06.2015. It is stated that she constructed a small house in the said plot as per condition of the house site patta and paying requisite taxes regularly. The property was assessed to municipal tax. While so, impugned notice dated 18.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to why she shall not be evicted

from the subject land, which is the Government land.

3. Heard Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel for

the petitioner, and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner, as such, the question of invoking the provisions of the L.A. Act does not arise and that the impugned notice suffers from non-application of mind and is without jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner is not given reasonable opportunity to defend her case pursuant to the impugned notice dated 18.06.2025.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, having not chosen to submit explanation, has rushed to this Court by making false allegations. If the petitioner has good case that the land was assigned to her, then on such ground, she may submit explanation to the impugned notice. There is an allegation that the assignment of the petitioner is not genuine. Thus, it is incorrect to contend that the provisions of the L.A. Act cannot be invoked and respondent No.4 is not having jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.

6. It is seen from the contents of the impugned notice that there is an allegation that the patta certificate claimed by the petitioner for the subject land with measurements 35 x 50 feet situated at Model Colony, Dubbaguda, Battisawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District, was verified and it was found on the basis of official records that there is no evidence to show that such patta was ever granted to the petitioner; and that it was found from the records that Survey No.72 is a Government land and it is vacant. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it needs to be verified whether the assignment patta dated 09.06.2015 (Ex.P2) claimed by the petitioner is a genuine document or not. It is premature to say that the provisions of the L.A. Act cannot be invoked. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted two (2) weeks’ time to submit explanation to the impugned notice. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No.4 shall pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Until such exercise is completed, respondent No.4 shall not interfere with possession of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

13.08.2025 V v