Telangana High Court
Ch. Bhupal Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12688 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 i e The
District Collector Hyderabad in summoning me to the office and issuing
"Undated Notes" thereby threatening to dispossess me from my land
admeasuring Acres 09.13 Guntas Sy.No.28/1 (part) and 29 (part) Block
H Ward No.9, Sy.No.129/50, D3, D4, D5, D6 of Shaikpet Village,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and implicate me in criminal cases without
following due process of law as illegal arbitrary unjust void and against
the judicial principles and precedence and consequently setaside the
"Undated Notes" issued by respondent No.2 the District Collector
Hyderabad in the interest of justice...."
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
3. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of
land admeasuring Ac.9.13 guntas, TS No.28 part and 29 part Block
H, Ward No.9, Sy.No.129/50, D3, D4, D5, D6 of Shaikpet Village,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through
agreement of sale dated 20.01.1974, from its lawful owners. It is
further stated that the-then Government of State of Andhra Pradesh
has issued G.O.Ms.No.942 of Revenue(Q) Department dated
23.06.1981 cancelling the Sarfekhas assignments numbering 35
which include the assignment to Ghulam Mohd. from whom the
petitioner is claiming his right of title. Questioning the same,
W.P.No.15548 of 1987 was filed and this Court has quashed the
said G.O, and aggrieved by the same, the State has filed an appeal
in W.A.No.859 of 1991, wherein the Division Bench dismissed the
said Writ Appeal. It is further stated that aggrieved by the same, the
State has filed an appeal vide SLP (Civil) No.10413-10415 of 2001
and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and
thus quashing the above said G.O has attained finality as no
further proceedings were initiated by the State Government. It is
further stated that the petitioner has instituted a suit vide
O.S.No.1241 of 1999 before the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad seeking regularization of the possession of the
petitioner in a suit instituted for specific performance and the said
suit was decreed and thereafter a registered sale deed vide
document No.199 of 2000 dated 17.04.2000 was executed. The
grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above said facts,
without following the due process of law, respondent No.2-District
Collector, is frequently interfering with his possession and
threatening to dispossess him from the subject lands.
4. As seen from the material placed on record except stating
that the petitioner has purchased the subject property through
agreement of sale and civil suits are pending before the Trial Court,
no evidence or material has been placed by the petitioner before
this Court stating that respondent No.2-the District Collector is
threatening the petitioner to dispossess from the subject property.
A careful reading of the affidavit would reveal that there are
disputes over the subject property between the petitioner and the
Government, and relying upon the notes/files/internal
correspondence obtained under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, the petitioner filed this writ petition,
questioning the internal correspondence of the District Collector
with other officials over the subject property. It is settled law that a
note file or internal correspondence generally doesn't affect the
maintainability of a writ petition, unless it demonstrates a final
decision or determination of a right or obligation that the petition
challenges. The core issue for writ petition maintainability lies in
the petitioner's ability to prove a violation of their fundamental
rights or that the challenged action is a function of state action or a
public authority and violation of the statutory duties.
5. In Mahadeo and others vs. Smt. Sovan Devi and others1,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"It is well settled that inter-departmental communications are in
the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied
upon as a basis to claim any right. This Court examined the said
question in a judgment reported as Omkar Sinha v. Sahadat Khan.
Reliance was placed on Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that
merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before
2022 Live Law (SC) 730
something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are
necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the
Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be
communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the
decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is
drawn up, the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as
bound by what was stated in the file."
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition filed is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is needless to
observe that if the petitioner is having any claim over the property,
he is at liberty to take steps before the competent Civil Court, in
accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 25.04.2025
sus
