IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.224 of 2026 DATE: 25.02.2026 Between:

Anemoni Yadaiah and another ….Appellants And The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 8 others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri D.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri M.Sateesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2725 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, who had sought a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4, to issue Pattadar passbooks in their favour and restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from dispossessing them from an extent of Ac.2-21 Gts. in Sy.No.65 of Chinnadharpally Village, Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, holding inter alia that the dispute involved conflict and competing claims of title and possession, incapable of adjudication in the writ proceedings.

Factual background (in brief)

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4-11 Gts. in Sy.No.65 of Chinnadharpally Village, Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The appellants claim to be the successors-in-interest of Late Anemoni Machaiah and Late Anemoni Anthaiah, who are stated to have been protected tenants in respect of an extent of Ac.2-21 Gts. out of the said land.

4. According to the appellants, the said tenancy rights were reflected in the relevant revenue records, including pahanis and other Village accounts, and upon the demise of their predecessors, they succeeded to the said rights and continued in possession and cultivation of the land.

5. The entire extent of Ac.4-11 Gts. originally stood in the name of Syed Nizamuddin, father of respondent No.6, as pattadar. The case of respondent No.6 is that his father, during his lifetime, executed a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1982 conveying an extent of Ac.2-38 Gts. out of the said survey number in favour of Late Alimoni Pedda Mashaiah, and that possession of the said land was delivered to the purchaser on the same day. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 claim to be the legal heirs of the said purchaser and assert that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land for several decades.

6. The record further discloses that the land in question was subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1984 for the purpose of providing house sites to members of the weaker sections. An award was stated to have been passed and compensation was paid to the pattadar, Syed Nizamuddin. Aggrieved by the said acquisition proceedings, Kavali Bheemaiah and Anemoni Machaiah i.e., the predecessor of appellant No.1, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11917 of 1985.

7. This Court, by order dated 03.04.1986, allowed the said writ petition at admission stage and quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia observing that the petitioners therein were small farmers claiming protected tenancy rights over the land.

8. The appellants assert that they have been in continuous possession and cultivation of the extent of Ac.2-21 Gts. and allege that on 20.01.2025 and again on 25.01.2025, the revenue authorities, accompanied by respondent No.6 and police personnel, attempted to interfere with their possession and sought to dispossess them. Alleging such interference and apprehending further coercive action, the appellants instituted W.P.No.2725 of 2025 seeking protection of their possession and issuance of pattadar passbooks in t