Badar Bin Omer Bin Harees, vs The Managing Director,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3657 Tel

           THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                               Writ Appeal No.1236 of 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

        Heard Mr. K.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing

Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

for respondents No.3 and 4.

2.      In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity

of the order dated 06.07.2012, passed by a learned Single Judge, by

which writ petition preferred by the appellant viz., W.P.No.20432

of 2012 has been dismissed.

3.      Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that

the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition inter alia on the ground

that he had purchased premises bearing D.No.8-4-101/1/B

admeasuring 986 square yards situated at Bandlaguda Kalsa Village,

Bandlaguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed

dated 27.09.1997 from one Dr. Mohd. Wajid. The appellant

constructed a house thereon. Thereafter, he learnt that the aforesaid

land purchased by him belongs to the State Government. He, ::2::

therefore, submitted an application seeking regularization of the

subject land under G.O.Ms.No.515 Revenue (Assignment)

dated 19.04.2003. Admittedly, on the aforesaid application, no

orders till today have been passed.

4. Appellant learnt that the respondent is seeking to erect a

transformer or substation on the subject land. Thereupon, he filed

the aforesaid writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition restraining

the respondents from erecting a transformer or sub-station on the

subject land. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the

learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant is not the

owner of the subject land and therefore, he cannot prevent the

statutory authority like A.P.Transco from utilising the Government

land. However, liberty was reserved to the appellant to stake his

claim for compensation in case his application for regularisation of

the subject land is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the

application seeking regularisation of the subject land is still pending

consideration.

::3::

6. Admittedly, the appellant is not the owner of the subject land.

It is also not in dispute that the transformer has already been erected

in the said land. Therefore, no relief, as prayed for by the appellant,

can be granted. However, liberty has already been reserved to him

to stake the claim for compensation in case his application seeking

regularization of the subject land is allowed.

7. We therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the

order dated 06.07.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.20432 of 2012.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is, hereby,

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 07.11.2023 LUR