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.309 of 2026 DATE: 06.04.2026 Between:

Thokata Suresh ….Appellant And State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary and 25 others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri N.Abhishek, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the interim order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34690 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by applying the settled principles relating to delay and laches.

Factual matrix (in brief)

3. Appellant claims that the subject land, being agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.16 Gts in Sy.No.94 and Ac.0.02 Gts in Sy.No.124, totaling Ac.0.18 Gts, situated at Uppal Bagayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as “the schedule property”), is an Inam land governed by the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Inams Act’). Originally, one Thokata Narsimha, the grandfather of the appellant, was the Inamdar, owner, and possessor of the schedule property and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof from the year 1955. Upon his demise on 22.02.1975, his son, Thokata Sandaiah (father of the appellant), succeeded to the property, and his name was accordingly entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor.

4. Subsequently, upon the death of Thokata Sandaiah on 17.08.1987, his wife, Smt. Thokata Neelamma (mother of the appellant), succeeded to the schedule property. Though the name of Thokata Sandaiah continued in the revenue records up to the year 1995–96, from the year 1996–97 onwards, the name of the appellant’s mother came to be reflected in the revenue records, and she continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without interruption.

5. While matters stood thus, 5^th respondent, without any lawful right, title, or possession over the schedule property, is alleged to have approached the competent authority seeking grant of occupancy rights. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Ranga Reddy East Division, by proceedings in ORC No.J/4080/1996 dated

06.09.1997, granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in favour of 5^th respondent in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.17 Gts, comprising Ac.0.06 Gts in Sy.No.94, Ac.0.13 Gts in Sy.No.124, and Ac.0.38 Gts in Sy.No.156, after collecting a premium amount of Rs.2,850/-. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Uppal, implemented the said ORC vide proceedings No.B/7979/97 dated 11.09.1997, and 5^th respondent was treated as the owner of the said extent.

6. Pursuant to the grant of ORC, 5^th respondent along with other ORC holders, namely Gunde Yadaiah and Gunde Krishna, obtained approval of a layout covering a total extent of Ac.2.01 Gts in Sy.Nos.93, 94, 124 and 125. The said lands were converted into plots and alienated in favour of various third-party purchasers through registered sale deeds, thereafter, such purchasers have constructed residential houses and commercial establishments, obtained electricity connections, are paying property taxes to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), and have been in settled possession for several years.

7. On 30.07.2015, when 5^th respondent and others attempted to dispossess the appellant’s mother from the schedule property, she filed O.S.No.473 of 2015 before the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit came to be closed on 20.08.2018. In the said proceedings, the application for interim injunction in I.A.No.653 of 2015 was dismissed on 04.02.2016 on the ground that the appellant’s mother fail