2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 33195
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Smt.Medikonda Ruth Samson – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 7 Others – Respondent
WP 131/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Dated:17.12.2025
Between:
Medikonda Ruth Samson
…Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, reptd., by
its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and seven others.
…Respondents
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not assigning or allotting house site patta to the petitioner in respect of Government land in Sy.No.199 of Peerzadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, though she has been in possession of the same since 30 years, as illegal and unsustainable in law and for
consequential prayer to allot the said land to the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, as averred in the Writ affidavit, required for adjudication of the Writ Petition, are that the petitioner claims that she been granted permission for construction of house in Sy.No.199 over an extent of 300 square yards by Peerjadiguda Gram Panchayat, Hayath Nagar, Uppal Mandal, vide order dated 23.09.1987; that she constructed a thatched house therein and was provided with electricity connection to the said house in the year 2011, vide Service Connection No.1601 14442 and has been paying electricity consumption charges and also paying taxes to Peerjadiguda Gram Pancahayat; that while so, she alleged that on 14.02.2012, at the instance of the then VRO-Satyanarayana, the said thatched house was demolished by certain persons and in that regard, she made representation to the RDO; and that with great difficulty, she could reconstruct a ACC roofed house, however, certain officials of the Revenue and some anti-social elements are constantly interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the said house.
3.1. Hence, the petitioner made several representations to various authorities, i.e., District Collector and several other revenue authorities for allotment of house site patta in Sy.No.199 of Peerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, but in vain. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste and falls within the category of below poverty line and as such, she was provided with White Ration card in the year 2006. He further contended that the electricity consumption bills, White Ration Card and Aadhar card of the petitioner show that she has been using the subject property as dwelling house and has been in possession thereof as on 02.06.2014 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to allotment/assignment of unobjectionable Government land as per G.O.Ms.No.58, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 30.12.2014, as the conditions stipulated therein are entirely satisfied.
4.1. He further contended that the petitioner has been running from pillar to post, viz., the RDO, District Collector, A.P. State Commission for SCs and STs, Minister of State for Roads Transport and Highways, ventilating her request for allotment/assignment of the subject land since her possession is constantly interfered with unsocial elements, but all her efforts are in vain. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petition by issuing a Mandamus directing respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment/assignment of the subject land to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, based on the contents in the counter, submitted that the subject land falls under Government land and that respondent No.8-Tahsildar submitted a report, dated 22.06.2020, stating that the petitioner encroached the Government land. She further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that due to laying of drainage pipe line adjacent to her house, her house was damaged is false and untenable and that, in fact,