Telangana High Court
Nagothu Joji vs The State Of Telengana on 11 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.21502 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. A. Muneendhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6.
CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:
2. The father of the petitioner, late Nagothu Chinnaiah and his
brother, late Papaiah, resided in Nagineniprolu Reddypalem Village,
for the period from 1946 to 1958. Prior to 1950, they removed wild
growth and rocks in the land to an extent of Acs.05.00 guntas in
Survey No.262 (New Survey No.262/1) of Sarapaka Village now in
Burgampahad Mandal, Badradri - Kothagudam District and brought
the said land into cultivation.
i) In the year 1959, they shifted their residence to Sarapaka
Village. After demise of his paternal uncle - Mr. Papaiah, who had no
issues, his father alone was cultivating the said land.
ii) After demise of the father of the petitioner, himself, his
three (03) brothers and two sisters viz., Mr.Nagothu Thamasaiah, Mr.
KL, J
Nagothu Innaiah, Mr. Nagothu Balaswamy, Ms. Pudota Showrilu @
Sowaramma and Ms. Kommineni Therisa, had been cultivating the
said land with dry crops and had been eking out their livelihood from
the income derived therefrom. On account of death of wife of elder
brother of the petitioner, his elder brother - Nagothu Thamasaiah went
into depression and subsequently left the house and his whereabouts
are not known to them.
iii) The name of the father of the petitioner was also recorded
in revenue records. His father paid Cist in respect of the said land.
Even B-Memorandum statements from the years 1964 to 1994 show
that his father along with his paternal uncle is in possession of the
subject land.
iv) During the month of February, 1984, respondent No.4
ignoring the entries in revenue records issued notice under Section - 7
of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to the father of the petitioner
herein calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be
evicted from an extent of Acs.04.00 guntas out of Acs.05.00 guntas.
After satisfying with record produced by the father of the petitioner in
respect of title as well as possession and the survey conducted,
KL, J
respondent No.4 had issued a Certificate baring No.A/433/1984, dated
19.03.1984. In view of the same, the father of the petitioner and his
brother are in possession and enjoyment of the said land from at least
1964 though not 1950.
v) In the year 2009, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land
Records, Khammam, conducted survey of the said land. As per the
said survey, the said land was shown to be located in Survey
No.262/2, which is evident from the letter dated 27.11.2014 of
respondent No.4.
vi) Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a memo in Rc.
No.E3/3134/2014, dated 30.10.2015 informing the father of the
petitioner that according to the Regional Deputy Director an extent of
Acs.04.07 guntas of land in Survey No.262/1 is Government land and
that respondent No.4 had taken possession of the said land. In view of
the same, the request made by the father of the petitioner for handing
over the said land was rejected. Questioning the same, the father of
the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.1052 of 2016. During
pendency of the said writ petition, the father of the petitioner died on
28.01.2016. The petitioner herein, his brothers and sisters were
KL, J
brought on record as his legal heirs. Thereafter, they withdrew the
said writ petition and filed a fresh writ petition vide W.P. No.14066 of
2016, which was also withdrawn later. Again they filed another writ
petition vide W.P. No.1662 of 2019 before this Court challenging the
memo dated 30.10.2015. This Court allowed the said writ petition on
merits vide order dated 30.10.2023 directing the respondents therein to
reconsider the case of the petitioner herein for handover the
possession of land to an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas (which is
hereinafter referred to as 'subject land') and pass a reasoned order.
vii) Pursuant to the said order dated 30.10.2023, on
consideration of material, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order
in Rc.No.E3/3134/2014, dated 07.05.2024 rejecting the request made
by the petitioner herein for handing over the possession of the subject
land. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition contending as follows:
a) Respondent No.2 did not consider G.O.Ms.No.971, dated
07.10.1969.
KL, J
b) He also misconstrued the judgment of this Court in P.
Gangamma v. Vashudha Misra 1 stating that this Court
quashed the said G.O.Ms.No.971.
c) Andhra Pradesh Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970 came
into force w.e.f. 03.02.1970, whereas this Court quashed the
aforesaid G.O. subsequent to enforcement of the said
Regulation 1 of 1970.
d) This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically
held that the said Regulation 1 of 1970 is prospective in
nature, and transaction/possession prior to 03.02.1970 shall
not be affected by the said Regulation 1 of 1970 or
subsequent Regulations. Thus, the said judgment has no
application to G.O.Ms.No.971.
e) Respondent No.2 did not consider the contentions of the
petitioner properly, nor gave an opportunity before passing
impugned order.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel sought to set
aside the impugned order.
. 1998 (2) ALD 35
KL, J
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
3. Whereas, respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying
the claim of the petitioner contending as follows:
i) Respondent No.2 had issued notices dated 14.12.2023 to
the petitioners in W.P. No.1662 of 2019 and final notices
dated 27.03.2024. Out of six petitioners, only five
petitioners responded to the said notices and attended to
its office. Personal hearings were also conducted on
29.02.2023 and 03.04.20024.
ii) The petitioners filed some documents and material
papers. The same were verified and arguments were
heard in detail. After verifying revenue records, Sethwar
along with report of the Tahsildar, Burgampahad and
Survey Report of the Assistant Director, the Regional
Deputy Director of Survey Department and other
concerned Officers and on verifying the settled law, he
came to the conclusion that the petitioners therein are not
entitled for handing over the possession of the subject
KL, J
land and accordingly passed the order dated 07.05.2024.
Thus, the said order is based on sound reasoning.
iii) The petitioner has no right over the subject property as
the same is a Government land.
iv) The petitioner belongs to Non-Tribe Community and,
therefore, he is not eligible for assignment of
Government land as the subject land is situated in
Scheduled Area.
v) The assignment to Non-Tribals in Scheduled Area is
prohibited under the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land
Transfer Regulation, 1959 as mended by Regulation 1 of
1970.
vi) The subject property was encroached 30 years back by
ITC BPL and possession of the same was taken over by
the Government in terms of common order in W.P.
Nos.20239 of 2012, 6316 of 2010 and C.C. No.859 of
2013.
KL, J
vii) The possession of subject land was taken over by the
Government from ITC BPL under cover of panchanama
dated 09.10.2015.
viii) At present, the petitioner is not in possession of the
subject land. Thus, he is not entitled for any benefit under
G.O.Ms.No.971.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government
Pleader sought to dismiss the writ petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
4. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the main
contention of the petitioner is that his father had been in possession
and enjoyment of the land i.e., Acs.05.00 guntas in Survey No.262
(new Survey No.262/1) of Sarapaka Village, during his life time.
While so, taking advantage of his father's absence, ITC BPL started
parking heavy vehicles over an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas of land out
of Acs.05.00 guntas. When the petitioner's father tried to fence
around the said land, respondent Nos.4 and 7 prevented him from
doing so. Therefore, he filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.6316 of
2010 and got interim order. During subsistence of the said interim
KL, J
order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have issued notice dated 22.06.2012 to
ITC BPL under Section - 7 of the Act, 1905. Challenging the same,
ITC BPL filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.20239 of 2012 against
respondent Nos.3 and 4 suppressing the factum of filing of writ
petition by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the father of the
petitioner was impleaded in the said writ petition. When the ITC BPL
in collusion with respondentNos.4 and 5 removed the fence and
started parking heavy vehicles in the subject land, the father of the
petitioner was constrained to file a contempt case vide C.C. No.859 of
2013.
5. Perusal of record would reveal that both the aforesaid writ
petitions and C.C. were disposed of by this Court by way of common
order dated 28.10.2014 with the following directions:
1. The District Collector, Khammam (though not a party to this
writ petition, a copy of this order is being marked to him for
communication and appropriate action) shall take appropriate
steps, as directed hereunder and respondents 1 and 2 shall,
thereafter, take up further action in accordance with law.
2. The Collector shall direct a superior officer of the Survey and
Land Records Department, Telangana, to appoint an officer of
the rank of Deputy Director of Survey to conduct survey and
KL, J
demarcate the land alienated to the petitioner company in terms
of G.O.Ms.No.1561 Revenue Department dated 26.11.1977.
3. The Deputy Director shall also localize and demarcate the
additional land, if any, in possession of the petitioner company.
4. The Deputy Director shall also ascertain and localize as to
whether any additional land, if any, is the land belonging to the
Government or any private party including the petitioner in
WP.No.6316 of 2010 as per the revenue record.
5. The determination and demarcation of the land on the directions
above, however, shall not amount to determination of title of
any of the parties but shall be only a preliminary ascertainment
of the prima facie title of the parties to the additional land, if
any.
6. Based on the said report, the Collector shall direct the Revenue
Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to take appropriate action
in the matter and to take all necessary steps by duly following
the procedure in accordance with law.
7. As and when the survey work is taken up, as per the directions
above, all the parties herein shall be duly notified apart from
any other person, who will be affected by the survey. The
aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a
period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order by the Collector."
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.6 -
Regional Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad,
conducted survey after issuing notices to the parties concerned and
KL, J
after obtaining connected survey records from the office of the
Assistant Director - respondent No.5 on 13.03.2015. Thereafter,
respondent No.6 submitted his report to respondent No.5 along with
survey location sketch. Perusal of the said survey report of
respondent No.6 would disclose that an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas
vacant additional land has been localized (shown as 'A' in the sketch)
and the same is under enjoyment of ITC BPL and is being used as
lorry yard by them. Accordingly, respondent No.6 addressed a letter
vide Rc.No.A5/34/2015, dated 21.05.2015 to respondent No.2.
7. On receipt of the said letter, dated 21.05.2015, respondent
No.2 addressed a letter dated 28.08.2015 to respondent No.3 to take
further course of action for eviction of ITC, BPL from encroached
land to the extent of Acs.04.07 guntas belonging to Government Land
in Survey No.262/1 of Sarapaka Village by giving reasonable
opportunity to the parties concerned duly following the procedure in
accordance with law and requested him as well as the Tahsildar,
Burgampadu Mandal to submit compliance report.
8. On receipt of the said letter, respondent No.3 addressed a
letter to respondent No.4 with a direction to take steps for eviction of
KL, J
ITC BPL in respect of the subject land. In pursuance of the said
direction, vide letter dated 07.10.2015, respondent No.4 directed the
Administrative Officer, ITC, PSPD, Sarapaka, to take over the excess
land of Acs.04.07 guntas in Survey No.262/1 from ITC, PSPD,
Sarapaka, under cover of panchanama and take necessary steps to
safeguard the same. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner herein
gave a representation dated 26.10.2015 to respondent No.2 with a
request to hand over the subject land.
9. On receipt of the representation dated 26.10.2015 submitted
by the father of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued a memo vide
Rc.No.E3/3134/2014, dated 30.10.2015 to the father of the petitioner
informing that respondent No.4 had taken possession of the subject
land in Survey No.262/1 and that the same belongs to Government
and, therefore, it is not possible to hand over the possession of subject
land to him and accordingly rejected the request made by the
petitioner's father. On the same day, respondent No.2 also passed the
order dated 30.10.2015 to the said effect.
10. While so, the father of the petitioner died on 28.01.2016.
Thereafter, the petitioner, his brothers and two sisters filed a writ
KL, J
petition vide W.P. No.1662 of 2019 challenging the said order dated
30.10.2015 and also the memo dated 30.10.2015 of respondent No.2.
11. Vide order, dated 30.10.2023, this Court allowed the said
writ petition setting aside the aforesaid order as well as the memo
dated 30.10.2015 directing the respondents to reconsider the request
made by the petitioner to hand over the possession of the subject land
duly considering the entire material on record within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and duly
communicate the decision to the petitioners. Till completion of such
exercise, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo in
respect of the land admeasuring Acs.04.07 guntas.
12. Pursuant to the said order, dated 30.10.2023, respondent
No.2 had issued notice dated 14.12.2023 to the petitioners in the said
writ petition with a direction to appear on 29.12.2023 by 10.30 A.M.
with all relevant documents. Respondent No.2 also addressed a letter
dated 29.12.2023 to respondent No.4 with a request to submit a
detailed report on Survey No.262/1 to an extent of Acs.05.055 guntas.
Accordingly, respondent No.4 submitted his report dated 19.02.2024
to respondent No.2.
KL, J
13. Perusal of the said report would reveal that the father of the
petitioner was the resident of Sarapaka Village for the period from
1946 to 14.12.2007 as is evident from the residential certificate dated
14.12.2007. As per the possession certificate dated 19.03.1984 issued
by the then Tahsildar, the father of the petitioner was in possession of
the land shown in Survey No.262 to an extent of Acs.05.00 guntas
from 1964 onwards. As per the survey conducted by respondent No.5,
the subject land is in Survey No.262/2, whereas according to the
survey conducted by respondent No.6, the same is in Survey
No.262/1.
14. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a final notice dated
27.03.2024 to the petitioners in W.P.No.1662 of 2019 with a direction
to appear on 03.04.2024 at 3.00 P.M. The petitioner herein also
submitted an application 06.04.2024 along with relevant documents,
such as G.O.Ms.No.971, dated 07.10.1969 etc.
15. After hearing the petitioners in W.P. No.1662 of 2019 and
on consideration of the entire material, respondent No.2 passed
impugned order dated 07.05.2024 observing thus:
KL, J
i) An extent of Acs.05.00 guntas of land was occupied by
Nagothu Family in Survey No.262 as per the entries
found in B. Memos which is basically a record of
encroachments in Government lands.
ii) The land shown by the petitioner is located in Survey
No.262/2, but not in Survey No.262/1 as per the report
given by the Regional Deputy Director. The extent of
land is only Acs.04.07 guntas, but not Acs.05.00 guntas
as alleged by the petitioner.
iii) On verification of B. Memos, there are certain tampering
in the extent under occupation of the petitioner's family.
iv) Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they are in
possession of the land in Survey No.262/1 is invalid.
v) Regarding possession certificate said to be given by the
Tahsildar in the year 1984 is not worthy to take into
consideration due to the non-availability of original file.
Even as per the Government instructions, no possession
certificate shall be given to the Non-Tribals in the
KL, J
Schedule area without the approval from the District
Collector on Government Land.
vi) As per the instructions given by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.971, in the cases of Government Lands, a)
persons other than landless-poor shall be straight away
evicted from the lands occupied by them; b) Landless-
poor persons shall not be evicted from the lands under
their occupation up to a maximum extent of Acs.2.00
guntas wet, Acs.05.00 guntas of dry which limits shall
apply inclusive of the dry lands if any, already owned by
the encroachers unless and until such lands are needed for
assignment to Tribals; and c) no fresh encroachments of
Government lands by non-tribals shall be allowed and
prompt measures shall be taken to evict any such
encroachments.
vii) This Court in P. Gangamma1 has quashed the said G.O.
observing that the State cannot issue orders in exercise of
its executive power contrary to the Statute.
KL, J
Observing so, respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner by
way of impugned order dated 07.05.2024.
16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that in
pursuance of the directions given by this Court in the writ petitions
and the contempt case mentioned above and also the direction in W.P.
No.1662 of 2019, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for handing over the possession of
the subject land. The said order was passed by respondent No.2 only
after issuing notices to all the parties, hearing them including the
petitioner herein, after obtaining necessary reports from respondent
Nos.4 to 6 and perusing them in proper perspective. Further, the
subject land was encroached 30 years back by ITC BPL and the same
was taken over by the Government under a cover of panchanama
dated 09.10.2015.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not in dispute that
the subject land is not relating to any scheduled tribe; that the interest
of schedule tribe is not involved in the instant case and that the land is
claimed to be the Government land. In the light of the same, it can be
KL, J
said that the provisions of A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer
Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 have no
application to the facts of the present case as held by the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh in Marri Siva v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2 following
the principle laid down by the composite High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in U. Subhashchandra v. Agent to
Government and District Collector, Visakhapatnam3.
18. But, in the case on hand, at present, the petitioner, his
brothers and sisters are not in possession of the subject land. Had they
been in possession of the subject property, their case would have been
considered as per the principle laid down in Marri Siva2 and U.
Subhaschandra3. Further, they belong to Non-Tribes Community as
admitted by the petitioner in the reply affidavit submitted to the
counter affidavit of respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner, his
brothers and sisters are not entitled for handing over of possession as
the subject land is situated in Scheduled Area. Even G.O.Ms.No.971
is also not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same was
. W.P. No.22806 of 2008, decided on 10.10.2018
. 1992 (1) ALT 52 (NRC)
KL, J
quashed by this Court in P. Gangamma1. Therefore, the contention
of the petitioner that he is entitled to get possession of the subject land
by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.971 though he is a non-tribe is unsustainable.
CONCLUSION:
19. As discussed supra, as admitted by the petitioner that he is
not in possession of the subject land to an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas
out of Acs.05.00 guntas as the possession was already taken by
respondent No.4 under cover of panchanama dated 09.10.2015 and
the same is under his safe custody.
20. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision
rendered by this Court in Pingili Pullaiah v. The State of
Telangana4. It is settled law that transfers of land from tribals to non-
tribals in Scheduled Areas are prohibited and void as held by this
Court in the said decision. Therefore, the said decision is not helpful
to the petitioner herein. Non-tribals cannot hold land in Agency Area.
Even if a non-tribal is in possession based on revenue entries, such
possession does not confer legal title, especially in Scheduled Areas.
The Apex Court and High Courts have consistently held that mere
. W.P. No.39758 of 2022, decided on 24.08.2023.
KL, J
possession or revenue entries do not create ownership, particularly
when the land is government or tribal land. If the land is classified as
government land, no individual has a legal right to its possession
unless granted lawfully (e.g., through assignment, lease, patta).
Encroachment on government land does not create any enforceable
right. As discussed above, the petitioner is not in possession of the
subject land. Therefore, considering his request for handing over the
possession does not at all arise.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by
respondent No.2 is on sound reasoning and does not warrant any
interference by this Court to set aside the same. Therefore, this writ
petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
22. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
11th September, 2025
Mgr
