Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17857
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J
Yamini Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.16881 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Sangannaidu
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Endowments, Government Pleader for Revenue
Statutory authorities are strictly forbidden from dispossessing individuals from land without adhering to the requirements of natural justice, due process, and established law, regardless of claims of ownership or possession.
Headnote:The Writ Petition was filed challenging the arbitrary attempts by state authorities to dispossess the petitioners from agricultural land without following due process of law. The petitioners claimed possession supported by pattadar passbooks. The Court reaffirmed that statutory authorities must adhere to legal procedures and principles of natural justice before taking possession of property, emphasizing that actions must be taken only after due notice and inquiry. The core issue was whether the state, as a statutory authority, could summarily dispossess occupants without following established legal procedures. The Court held that property rights, protected under constitutional provisions, cannot be infringed upon without strict adherence to the due process of law. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the authorities not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process, including notice, inquiry, and the opportunity for a hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court jurisdiction and summary of parties' claims regarding possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. mandate to follow due process before dispossession. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.378/2 and 3 and an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.382, situated at Gundepudi Village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.378/2 and 3 and an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.382, situated at gundepudi village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District without following due process of law, and to pass such other order or orders …”
2. Heard Mr.K. Sangannaidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners have been in possession of the subject land for several years and that pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour. Despite the same, the authorities are trying to dispossess them from the subject property without following the due process of law.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that the petitioners are unlawfully claiming the subject land and are not entitled to any relief. It is further contended that the OR proceedings relied upon by the petitioners are not placed before this Court.
5. Be that as it may, when the respondents seek to dispossess the petitioners, being statutory authorities, they are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Endowments Act and the procedure established by law.
6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands without following due process of law. If the respondents intend to resume or take possession of the subject lands, they are at liberty to do so only after following due procedure, by issuing notice to the petitioners, conducting necessary enquiry, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, considering the documents produced by them, and thereafter passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought the grievance is that the petitioner is being constantly called to the police station. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the crime is registered against the petitioner in Crime No.119 of 2026 for the offence under Section 318 (4) and 316(2) of the BNSS, 2024. In that view of the matter, if the said offences are below 7 years, the respondents shall follow due procedure envisaged under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act along with the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 8 ScC 273.
