IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4573 of 2026 Dated: 23.02.2026 Between Sri Mohammed Abdul Gani and another …PETITIONERS And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…RESPONDENTS

ORDER

The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 - District Collector, Hyderabad District dated May 2023 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the binding statutory appellate order dated 27.12.1995 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Hyderabad in Appeal Case No.B/2662/1995 under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and implement the said appellate order by quantifying the amount payable and completing regularisation of the Petitioners property bearing Municipal No.8-2- 316/2/A & B, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 833 square meters in Survey No.129/54 of Shaikpet Village by adopting the market value prevailing in the year 1975 alone without reference to present guideline values or any subsequent Government Orders policies circulars executive instructions or administrative guidelines whatsoever.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Assignment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the appellant in Case No.B/2662/1995 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad – respondent No.3 and order dated 27.12.1995 was passed whereby the appeal was partly allowed. The respondent therein – State of Andhra Pradesh was directed to unlock the premises and handover possession f the property to the petitioner No.1 subject to filing an undertaking that he would apply for regularization under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.508 Revenue Department dated 20.10.1995.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that pursuant to the said order, possession was delivered to the petitioner No.1 under Proceedings No.D/948/1995 dated

22.01.1996 upon submitting undertaking in the shape of affidavit, Ex.P5, stating that he is ready to pay market of the property as in the year 1975. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 submitted letter dated 16.02.1996 to the respondent No.4 stating that he is ready to pay the market value of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 27.12.1995. However, as there was no response from the respondent No.3, the petitioner No.1 approached the respondents No.2 to 4 through several representations requesting for regularization as per the order of the respondent No.3 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995. Thereafter, on representation of the petitioner No.1 dated 24.07.2023 to the District Collector – respondent No.2, endorsement bearing No.Rev/12/R166/Shak/0003/2023-R-Sec dated Nil.05.2023 was issued informing the petitioner No.1 that his request cannot be considered as order dated 30.12.2013 and 10.09.2008 was passed in PIL.No.517 of 2013 directing “State Governments shall not implement or act upon G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008.”

5. It is seen from the endorsement that the petitioner No.1 has applied under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 for transfer of right to an extent of 1088 sq. yards in premises No.8-2-316/2A, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, which is subject matter of RDO in Case No.B/2662/1995 dated 27.12.1995. Further, the matter was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC) meeting held on

05.10.2013 and on scrutiny, the DLC recommended for 704 sq. yards basing on the registered sale deed No.2039/75 dated 17.07.1975 and the request of the petitioner No.1 for regularization of the remaining 384 sq. yards was rejected by noting that it is highly valuable and required for public pu