IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 1124 OF 2025

06.05.2026 Between:

Steeple Infra Care Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Pentom Srinivas Rao ….. 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 the land admeasuring Acs. 7.15 gts (Ac. 7.38 cents or 35,695 sq. yds or 29,844.58 sq. mtrs) situated in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1, Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No. 16337/2021 dated 28.12.2021, and since then, petitioner is in physical possession of the subject property without any disturbance from any quarter; consequent upon the purchase, the subject land was mutated in favour of Petitioner by proceedings dated 13.04.2022 and the name of Petitioner is duly reflected in the revenue records.

1.1. It is stated, the vendor of Petitioner had applied for conversion of subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural use and the competent authorities issued proceedings dated 30.03.2011 permitting such conversion; petitioner got the subject land surveyed through the Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and the land was duly demarcated under a panchanama dated 06.12.2023; the predecessors- in-title of Petitioner were the original owners and possessors of the subject land and upon purchase, petitioner has succeeded to such ownership and possession; Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies till date reflect the names of the vendors as well as Petitioner as owners and possessors of the subject land, and such entries in Khasra Pahani are records of rights which carry a presumption of correctness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand Vs DJP Karini Sabha¹

1.2. It is stated, when Respondent No.2 and his personnel initially attempted to interfere with the possession of the subject property, the predecessors-in-title of petitioner instituted O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad, wherein Respondent No.2 had filed written statements; the said suits were decreed on 30.12.2004

AIR 1974 SC 1178

granting permanent injunction restraining Respondent No.2 and his agents from interfering with the possession of the predecessors-in-title of Petitioner, and the said decree has attained finality.

1.3. Notwithstanding the above decree and the fact that the subject lands are private patta lands, it is stated, Respondent No.3, under the instructions of Respondent No.2, invoked summary proceedings and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 in Form "A" under sub-section (1) and clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of public premises and calling upon them to vacate; Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction, power or authority to issue the said notice dated 02.02.2024 invoking the provisions of the Act, 1971 in view of the serious dispute regarding title and ownership of the subject property.

1.4. Immediately upon receipt of the said notice on 06.02.2024, according to petitioner, they applied for relevant material including certified copies of link documents, pahanies, mutation proceedings, land conversion proceedings and court papers in the above suits; after receiving the said material in the last week of February, 2024, Petitioner is stated to have submitted a detailed reply dated 29.02.2024 along with material documents narrating the relevant facts and raising a prima facie objection to the notice dated 02.02.2024 on the ground that subject property does not fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act, 1971; petitioner specifically contended that Respondent No.3 had not furnished any material document to establish that the subject property is public premises, notice was without jurisdiction and auth