IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 1070 OF 2025

06.05.2026 Between:

Sirangi Sravanthi ….. Petitioner And The Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2904 square yards (0.24 guntas) in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 situated at Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 18953/2022 dated 16.12.2022, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted physical possession of the subject property from the date of purchase without any disturbance from any quarter. After purchase of the subject property, the same was mutated in favour of petitioner vide proceedings No. 1904-1-18953/2022 dated 20.12.2022 and her name was reflected in the revenue records. Petitioner has also got the subject land surveyed through the Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and demarcated the same under a panchanama dated 03.10.2023. Petitioner's predecessors-in-title were the original owners and possessors of the subject land and, upon purchase, she has become the lawful owner and possessor of the said property.

1.1. It is stated, Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies till date reflect the names of vendors as well as Petitioner as owners and possessors of the subject land and the entries in Khasra Pahani, being records of rights, carry a presumption of correctness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand v. DJP Karini Sabha, AIR 1974 SC 1178 Respondent No.3, under the instructions of Respondent No.2, ignoring the above documents and the fact that the subject land is a private patta land, invoked the summary procedure under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 in Form ‘A’ under Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act alleging that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of public premises and is liable to be evicted.

1.2. It is further stated, Respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction, power or authority to invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of the subject property as there exists a serious dispute with regard to title and ownership of the said land. Immediately upon receipt of notice dated 02.02.2024 on 06.02.2024, Petitioner applied for relevant material including certified copies of link documents, pahanies and mutation proceedings and after receiving the same in the first week of March, 2024, submitted a detailed reply dated 13.03.2024 along with material documents to Respondents raising prima facie objections to the notice and specifically contending that the subject property does not fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act, 1971.

1.3. Petitioner also contended that Respondent No.3 had not furnished any material document to establish that subject property constitutes public premises under the Act and notice dated 02.02.2024 is without jurisdiction, power and authority, and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondent No.3, despite having received the explanation dated 13.03.2024 along with material documents, did not consider the same and without affording an opportunity of hearing, passed the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 in Form ‘B’ under Section

5(1) of the Act directing Petitioner to vacate the premises within

15 days, failing which forcible eviction would be carried out.

1.4. The impugned eviction order dated 22.03.2024 does not refer to or consider the explanation dated 13.03.2024 or the material documents submitted by petitioner and the same is without jurisdiction, authority and power and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.2024, invoked Section 9 of the Act and filed statutory appeal in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 before the Principal District Jud