IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.38251 of 2025 DATE: 12.12.2025 Between:

M/s. Green Home Landscape (Hyderabad).

...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 12 others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents herein in seeking to dispossess the petitioner company from an extent of Ac.13.08 Gts., of land in Sy.Nos.312, 364 and 378 of Chilkur village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and induct respondent Nos.5 to 13 and some others in possession thereof without initiating any proceedings what so ever under any of the statutes an without issuing any notice providing an opportunity the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and also violative of articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents and their subordinates not to dispossess the petitioner company from the above extent of land nor interfere with its possession and enjoyment thereof in any manner…”

2. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the photographs enclosed in this writ petition would submit that official respondents at the behest of unofficial respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property to an extent of Ac.13.08 Gts., in Sy.Nos.312, 364 and 378 of Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (‘subject property’ for brevity).

3.1 He would further submit that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.21790 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2024, recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that on the instructions from respondent No.4 therein who is respondent No.4 herein that respondent No.4 has never tried to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid land and however, if any action to be taken against the petitioner, respondent No.4 will follow the procedure laid down under law. While the said order is persisting, he would submit that official respondents are again trying to interfere with the subject property.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner has already filed a writ petition earlier, wherein this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, categorically recorded the submission of respondent No.4 that the subordinate staff of respondent No.4 are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner much less with force and if any action to be taken against the petitioner, procedure laid down under law will be followed and without there being any action on the part of official respondents, this writ petition is filed under misconception and hence, he would seek to dismiss this writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents and upon perusal of the material before this Court, it reveals that firstly, the petitioner has not mentioned the date on which official respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. Secondly, photographs do not prove that the official respondents have interfered with the possession of the petitioner herein.

6. Hence, this Court does not see any merit in this writ petition and accordingly dismissed. It is needless to mention that the official respondents shall take necessary action, if the petitioner is found in illegal possession of the subject property by issuing notices to all th