IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDEABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.14361 of 2020 DATE : 19.01.2026 Between Talla Venkati …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 4^th respondent in directing the petitioner herein to vacate his land in Sy.No.99 admeasuring Ac.4-13 gts, situated at Metpally Village, Kannepally Mandal, Mancherial District, without conducting any enquiry by usurping the jurisdiction of competent civil Court, as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri D. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri P. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9 and Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally petitioner’s mother was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-13 gts in Sy.No.99, situated at Metpally Village, Kannepally Mandal, Mancherial District (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) and after death of his mother, petitioner succeeded to the subject land and his name was also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.5 to 9 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.27 of 2003 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.4 of 2008 and the same was dismissed and thereafter, respondent Nos.5 to 9 have filed execution petition vide E.P.No.12 of 2011 and the same was executed by duly conducting panchanama. He further submitted that petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9 have entered into compromise and in pursuance of the compromise, petitioner was allowed to continue in possession and respondent No.4 was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 issued notice to the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 21.12.2019, accordingly, petitioner appeared before respondent No.4 and sought time to produce relevant documents, however, respondent No.4 without granting further time, issued impugned memo dated 23.12.2019, directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land and to hand over the same to respondent Nos.5 to 9, failing which, a police case would be registered against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 9 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.27 of 2003 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and the same was decreed and was executed vide E.A.No.03 of 2016 in E.P.No.12 of 2011, later, compromise was entered between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9, as per which, the petitioner was put in possession of the subject land and he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed, however, respondent No.4 without conducting any enquiry and without appreciating the above fact, had passed impugned memo dated 23.12.2019 without any jurisdiction. He further submitted that the memo issued by respondent No.4 is without any authority or jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.4 has no authority to issue the impugned memo dated 23.12.2019, directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land, and that failing which, the police case will be registered.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 would submit that the suit filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 9 for declaration of title and recovery of possession was decreed and the same was executed in the execution petition and respondents are in possession. However, the petitioner unauthorizedly occupied