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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 73053

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Bhukya Shashi Rekha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana And 4 Others – Respondent
WP 3462/2020



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3462 of 2020

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the vacant house site to an extent of 600 Sq.Yards bearing Plot Nos.2 and 3 in Sy.Nos.406/A, 406/E and 406/EE, situated at Paloncha revenue village, Polancha Town and Municipality, Polancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”), and threatening to dispossess her from the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonableness, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner above said land.

2. Heard Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, having purchased it through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2224/2017 dated 24.05.2017 from Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Ashok Kumar Agarwal. The vendor's title traces back to a registered sale deed document No.2391/1995, under which Shyam Sunder Agarwal, his wife Rukmini Bai and his sons acquired Ac.7.03 guntas in Sy.No.406 from Jalagam Venkateshwara Rao. Prior to that, Jalagam Venkateshwara Rao acquired the land via a registered will deed document bearing No.42/1993, dated 02.09.1993 from his aunt Smt.Jalagam Tulasamma, who had purchased it under a registered sale deed bearing document No.588/1994, dated 08.08.1984 from Smt.Terala Annapurnamma, W/o.Late Somasekhara Rao. The Revenue Department issued ROR passbooks and title deeds in favour of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Rukmini Bai, Vijay Kumar Agarwal, and Ashok Kumar Agarwal. Their names were duly reflected as pattadars and possessors in the relevant pahanies and revenue records. A certificate dated 26.12.2003 was also issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha, confirming their status as pattadars and possessors.

(a) It is further contended that, on 07.10.1995, the same officer addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Kothagudem, stating that there was “No Objection” for alienation of the land in Sy. Nos 406, 407, and 408, as they were patta lands. A report dated 18.02.2005 was also sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector recommending the grant of No Objection Certificate (C) for setting up a retail outlet on the subject land in Sy.No.406. Despite the above, on 10.02.2020, the respondents, without any prior notice or legal authority, entered the subject land, demolished existing structures, and threatened to dispossess the petitioner, falsely claiming the land to be Government property. They continued to threaten eviction and have expressed intentions to fence the land forcibly. The petitioner submits that the land is patta land and not Government land, and that the respondents, particularly Respondents No.2 to 5, have acted in total violation of due process and the principles of natural justice. No notice or show cause was issued to the petitioner, denying him the opportunity to defend her lawful possession. The petitioner’s father had earlier filed W.P. No. 25887 of 2019, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. In similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court granted interim protection in various writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10491, 10497, 10498, 10506, 10507, 10509, 10513, 10515, 10516 of 2019, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of 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
whatsapp-icon Back to top