Telangana High Court
Doddi Balraj vs State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1247 OF 2025
Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-Telangana
State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC).
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 03.07.2025
in W.P.No.18635 of 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant
before us.
2. In the Writ Petition, the appellant sought for award of
compensation for the acquisition of the subject land to an extent
of Ac.3.00 gts in Sy. No.252/26 of Hakeempet village, Dudyal
Mandal of Vikarabad District, by the State, at par with other
similarly situated assignment patta holders. The appellant also
contended that the State-respondents could not denude the
appellant of his rights in respect of the subject land, despite a
representation made by the appellant to the respondent No.2/
District Collector and the respondent No.3/Mandal Tahsildar on
03.06.2025.
MB,J & GPK,J
3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant was
unable to produce any documentary evidence showing the
issuance of pattadar pass book under The Telangana Rights in
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 nor under The
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020.
The learned Single Judge also found that the appellant was not
entitled to any relief since the names of the third parties who
allegedly purchased the said land under Sadabainama were
reflected in the Revenue Records for over fifteen years.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ
petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge dismissed the
Writ Petition on the second day without giving any opportunity
to the appellant to bring the relevant documents on record for
countering the allegations made by the respondents. Counsel
submits that according to the finding of the learned Single
Judge, the appellant had alienated the land in favour of third
parties whose names were reflected in the Revenue Records.
The appellant had actually not alienated the subject land or
interfered with it in favour of any such third party. Counsel
submits that the appellant's name ceased to be reflected in the
MB,J & GPK,J
Revenue Records from 2014 onwards. It is also submitted that
the finding of the learned Single Judge with respect to third
parties purchasing the appellant's land was based solely on the
representation made by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
State-respondents submits that the appellant was unable to
rebut the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant
had alienated the land in favour of third parties and that the
State has paid the compensation to the third party purchasers.
It is also submitted that the appellant had approached the
Court much beyond the time limit as provided under Section
15 (1) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
which provides that any person interested in any land which
has been notified, as being required or likely to be required for a
public purpose, may within for 60 days' from the date of
publication of the preliminary notification.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned Special Government Pleader for State-
Respondents.
MB,J & GPK,J
7. The sum and substance in the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant is that the finding of the learned Single
Judge, specifically, that the appellant alienated the land in
favour of third party was solely on the basis of submissions
made by the learned Additional Advocate General and that the
petitioner was not given any opportunity to counter the said
finding by submitting relevant documents on record. If the
alienation of the land by the appellant in favour of third parties
is indeed doubtful, then the appellant's entire case becomes a
matter which should have been determined in the light of
further documents to be filed by the appellant herein. The fact
that the name of the appellant ceased to be reflected in the
pattadar pass books since 2014 is also a question which should
have been gone into after perusing all documents brought by
the parties and subsequent to arguments being put forth.
8. Accordingly, we find that the appellant had a case which
calls for consideration in detail, subject to the documents
produced by the appellant and the State-respondents which
could not be placed before the learned Single Judge.
9. W.A.No.1247 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by setting
aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2025. The appellant
MB,J & GPK,J
shall be at liberty to make a fresh representation before the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the same shall be disposed of by
the respondent Nos.2 and 3/District Collector and Mandal
Tahsildar within four weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation made by the appellant.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 12.11.2025
KVR
