HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON Nos.8230, 8246, 8254, 8232, 8238, 8237 AND

8245 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 18-03-2026 W.P. No.8230 of 2026:

Between:

Mr. Macharla Krishnaiah Goud ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and two (2) others.

... Respondents

COMMON ORDER :

All these writ petitions are filed challenging the notices issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 (for short ‘Act 1905’) in connection with land in Survey No.721 of Veepanagandla Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District. With the consent of both sides, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission.

2. For the sake of convenience, W.P. No.8230 of 2026 is taken as lead case for disposal of W.P. Nos.8230, 8246, 8254 and 8232 of

2026. Brief facts in W.P. No.8230 of 2026 are as under:

2.1 The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.7-93, Plot No.7 in Survey No.720 of Weepenagandla Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 09.03.2005 executed by the previous owners, namely, Mr. B. Chandraiah and others. The petitioner obtained building permission from the Gram Panchayat, Weepanagandla, on 12.09.2006 and constructed house in accordance with sanctioned plan. The petitioner had been in possession of the property since more than twenty one (21) years. The petitioner had been residing in the subject property along with his family members.

2.2 While so, some villagers who were inimical to the petitioner submitted representation to then Mandal Revenue Officer in 2006 alleging that the father of the petitioner, Mr. M. Buchanna Goud, was constructing a house in Government land in Survey No.721 of Weepanagandla Village. Based on such representation, the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice in File No.A/6058/06 dated 15.12.2006 calling upon the father of the petitioner to submit explanation. Thereafter, detailed explanation was submitted by the father of the petitioner contending that construction was not in the land in Survey No.721 as alleged in the notice but in Plot No.7 of Survey No.720 which was purchased through registered sale deed. Further, the construction is undertaken by duly obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat.

2.3 It is stated that after submission of explanation by the father of the petitioner, no further action was taken by authorities and further proceedings have been dropped. Then, to the surprise of the petitioner, respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 7 of the Act 1905 vide No.A/112/2026 dated 26.02.2026 alleging that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of Government land admeasuring Ac.0-030 guntas in Survey No.721 of Weepangandla Village. Thereafter, within two (2) days i.e., on 28.02.2026, notice of eviction under Section 6 of the Act 1905 vide No.A/112/2026 directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property within seven (7) days i.e., 06.03.2026.

2.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that explanation dated 15.03.2026 was submitted by the petitioner to notice dated 26.02.2026 asserting that the property of the petitioner is in Survey No.720 but not in Survey No.721 and the petitioner had been residing in the property for the past more than twenty one (21)

years.

2.5 It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice as respondents ought to have given reasonable time to submit explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act 1905. However, only two (2) days was granted to the petitioner which is arbitrary and unreasonable. Respondent authorities not only issued notice under Section 6 of the Act 1905 but also proceeding to evict the petitioner from the subject property before expiry of appeal time.

3. Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government