Telangana High Court
V. Sunil Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18205 of 2025
ORDER:
It is stated that one Mr. Syed Ahmed Nooruddin was
assigned land to an extent of Acs.28-27 guntas in
Sy.Nos.102/3 and 102/4/1 situated at Hakimpet Village vide
notification, dated 16.11.1950 and his name was mutated in
the revenue records i.e., Jamabandi of the year of 1957 by
implementing the same in the supplementary sethwar. It is
further stated that in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.804, dated
03.06.1965, the Board of Revenue addressed a letter to the
District Collector directing to cancel the assignment made in
favour of Syed Ahmed Nooruddin, and in implementation of
the said letter, the District Collector addressed a letter vide
No.F2/2126/97, dated 14.03.1969 to the Tahsildar directing
to delete the name of Sri Syed Admed Nooruddin from the
revenue records. It is further stated that questioning the
same, Sri Syed Admed Nooruddin filed W.P.No.1520 of 1970
before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed vide
order, dated 24.11.1971; and in spite of the said order, when
the Government cancelled the assignment made in favour of
Sri Syed Admed Nooruddin, he filed W.P.No.3626 of 1976
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed vide
order, dated 21.12.1977; and subsequently the said lands are
divided into house plots and sold to the members of the
Yamuna Nagar Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1979.
The case of the petitioner is that he purchased Plot No.52,
admeasuring 1000 square yards in Sy.No.102/3, under
registered sale deed bearing document No.3000 of 1979, dated
09.11.1979 and he is in enjoyment of the said property as
absolute owner. It is further case of the petitioner that the
State has filed a Land Grabbing Case vide L.G.C.No.187 of
1997 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, against him and
other plot owners, and the same was dismissed vide order
dated 28.02.2011; and aggrieved by the same, the State has
preferred W.P.No.25763 of 2001 before this Court and the said
writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2005; and
the same was challenged vide SLP No.8872 of 2005 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said SLP was dismissed vide
order dated 30.09.2005, and the litigation attained finality.
Thereafter, when the respondent authorities have made efforts
to dispossess the petitioner forcibly, he filed W.P.No.12823 of
2024 before this Court. Vide order, dated 06.02.2025, this
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
Court disposed of the said writ petition and observed as
follows:-
"In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents not
to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner
over the subject lands in any manner, except by following
the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures 1 and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya And
Another vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and
others 2. Further, if the respondents are having any claim
over the said lands, they are directed to follow the due
procedure for resuming the lands into their custody."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without
considering the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12823
of 2024 and without following the procedure the respondent
authorities have passed the impugned order, dated 26.04.2025
and questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Considered the submissions of Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.V.B.S.N.Anudeep,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
Nos.1 to 4 and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed
of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought
for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial
respondent is dispensed with.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
vehemently contended that soon after receipt of the orders
passed by this Court in W.P.No.12823 of 2024, the respondent
authorities have issued notice under Section 7 of the
Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "the Act")
vide No.D/WP/12823/2024, dated 11.04.2025. Immediately
even before completion of 15 days from the date of issuance of
notice, dated 11.04.2025, the respondent authorities have
passed the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act vide
proceedings No.D/WP/12823/2024, dated 26.04.2025,
directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land and also
issued the consequential proceedings No.D/WP/12823/2024,
dated 26.04.2025, directing the Deputy Tahsildar/Girdhawar/
Special Revenue Inspector, to take possession of the subject
land and existing structures and to retain in proper custody.
5. Prima facie, it appears from the records that the
impugned order passed under Section 6 of the Act was
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
preceded by a notice, dated 11.04.2025 but no where it is
mentioned in the order that on what date the said notice was
served on the petitioner to enable him to submit an
explanation. Even without providing sufficient time in
conformity with the principles of natural justice, the
respondent authorities have passed the order under Section 6
of the Act on 26.04.2025, calculating the 15 days from the
date of issuance of the notice stating that the petitioner has
not submitted explanation within 15 days. Thus, the
procedure adopted by the respondents amounts to not only
violation of directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12823 of
2024 but also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures3
and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya And Another vs. U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad and others 4.
6. This Court while disposing of W.P.No.12823 of 2024
specifically directed the revenue authorities to follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court before initiating
any action for removal of encroachments. In the instant case,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
a careful examination of the contents of the affidavit would
reveal that the subject land was assigned in the year 1950;
thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the subject plot; and
the litigation arising out of the assignment of the said land in
favour of the vendors of the petitioner has attained finality on
dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year
2005.
7. Furthermore, the notice under Section 7 of the Act has
been issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2025 and the impugned
order under Section 6 of the Act has been passed on
26.04.2025, without even mentioning the date on which the
notice was served. If both the dates (the date of notice and
date of impungd order) are excluded, it is evident that it does
not comply with the requirement of granting 15 days time as
per the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and as
such the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities
amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as also the
various guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments referred above. Therefore, the impugned orders in
this writ petition are liable to be set aside and are accordingly
set aside.
CVBR, J
Wp_18205_2025
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the
respondent authorities to issue fresh show-cause notice to the
petitioner, by effecting service of the said notice strictly
following the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (4 supra) and duly
granting two weeks time from the date of service of notice, to
enable the petitioner to submit explanation. On filing such
explanation, the respondent authorities are directed to pass
appropriate orders thereon in terms of the provisions of the
Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Till such time, the
respondent authorities are directed to maintain status quo in
respect of the subject land, in all respects.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
30.06.2025
gkv
