HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.11067 of 2015 DATE OF ORDER: 19.01.2026 BETWEEN:

V.Susheela and 6 others.

… Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, rep. by Its Prl.Secretary and 3 others.

… Respondents : ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents particularly respondent No.3 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of House Site Pattas issued to the petitioners vide File No.B2/1741/03, dated 03.11.2003, in Sy.No.939 to an extent of 60 square yards each in Hanamkonda of Hanamkonda Mandal of Warangal District (for short ‘subject land’), without following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners belong to weaker sections of society and eking out their livelihood by performing Dramas wherever theatres available and also on the streets in different villages under the name and style of Sri Vinayaka Natya Mandali (Surabhi) which is a registered society vide Registration No.726/83. While so, petitioners submitted representation dated 27.08.2003 to the 2^nd respondent seeking allotment of land. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 called for a report from respondent No.4 vide letter Rc.No.G3/7795, dated 01.09.2003. In response to the said letter, respondent No.4 submitted a proposal to the 2^nd respondent vide letter Rc.No.B/1741/03, dated 01.11.2003, stating that vacant Government land is available in Survey No.939 of Hanamkonda Village, which is suitable for house sites. He further proposed allotment of 60 square yards of land to each member of the petitioners’ society and also sought approval of the same from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 approved the said proposal and issued House site Pattas to the petitioners vide file No.B2/1741/03, dated 03.11.2003, in Sy.No.939 to an extent of 60 square yards each to 21 members of the petitioners’ society. The petitioners have constructed houses on the said land and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 interfered with the possession of the petitioners claiming that the said land was allotted to respondent No.3 and threatened to demolish the houses of the petitioners without following due process of law and without acquiring the land by paying compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent No.3 cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land without following due process. He also submits that even in respect of assigned lands, the assignees are entitled to compensation on par with private land owners as held by this Court in LAO-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALD 451 (Larger Bench). Therefore, the action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land, without following due process and without acquiring the land by paying

compensation to the petitioners, is unsustainable and prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 on instructions would submit that respondent No.3 would follow due process as contemplated under law, if the subject land belonging to the petitioners is required for public purpose.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land, without following due process as contemplated under law. However, this order will not p