SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12058

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Cheela Prabhakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
WP 16996/2015



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.16996 of 2015

Date: 31.03.2026 Between:

Cheela Prabhakar and others

..Petitioners And

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Irrigation and CAD (MI.T) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others

..Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“…declaring the action of the respondents in digging the petitioners patta lands by encroaching the lands of the petitioners under the scheme of Mission Kakatiya to the extents i e admeasuring Ac 117 gts in Sy No 212/B of the 1st petitioner Ac 1 18 gts in Sy No 212/A of the 2nd petitioner Ac 023 gts in Sy No 195/2 Ac 018 gts in Sy No 194/D of the 3rd petitioner Ac 023 gts in Sy No 195/2 Ac 018 gts in Sy No 194/C of the 4th petitioner Ac 108 gts Sy No 196/D and Ac 031 gts in Sy No 196/C of the 5th petitioner Ac 200 in Sy No 194/B of the 6th petitioner situated at Rangampet Village Sadhashivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District without issuing any notice as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 21

##PAGE2##

2

and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners agricultural

operations without following due process of law…”

2. Heard Mr.T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Mahesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent No.5 and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner No.1 claims to be owner of the lands admeasuring Ac.1-17 gts., in Sy.No.212/B, petitioner No.2 claims to be owner of the lands admeasuring Ac.1-18 gts., in Sy.No.212/A, petitioner No.3 claims to be owner of the lands admeasuring Ac.0-23 gts., in Sy.No.195/2, Ac.0-18 gts., in Sy.No.194/D, petitioner No.4 claims to be owner of the lands admeasuring Ac.0-23 gts., in Sy.No.195/2., Ac.0-18 gts., in Sy.No.194/C; petitioner No.5 claims to be owner of land in Ac.1-08 gts., in Sy.No.196/D and Ac.0-31 gts., in Sy.No.196/C and petitioner

##PAGE3##

3

No.6 claims to be owner of land in Ac.2-00 gts., in Sy.No.194/B all situated at Rangampet Village, Sadhashivnagar Mandal, Nizambad District. Accordingly, respondent No.5 issued pattadar passbooks and pahanies in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that on 07.06.2015, the officials from Irrigation and Revenue Departments came to the petitioners’ lands and started demarcating the land for the purpose of digging the same with respect to Mission Kakatiya Project. The main grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of digging of their lands, the petitioners would lose their livelihood and that the petitioners are solely dependent on the irrigation. Questioning the same,

the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD has placed a copy of instructions issued by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kamareddy District wherein it is stated that the respondents, under the “Mission Kakatiya” programme for restoration of water bodies, wrongly alleged that the petitioners’ land falls within the tank

##PAGE4##

4

bed of Pedda Cheruvu and attempted to dispossess them without any notice or legal proceedings. Despite objections, the authorities attempted to enter and excavate the land

using machinery, threatening eviction through police force.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner’s land is private property, not part of the tank bed or catchment area, and that the respondents have no authority to interfere without following due process of law. The actions of the respondents are alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice. The subject land i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top