[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mrs. Siddiqa Tabassum vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11537 of 2026
Dated: 15.04.2026
Between
Mrs. Siddiqa Tabassum
...PETITIONER
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Assignment, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue and Smt. M. Bhagyasri, learned counsel for
respondents No.6 to 8.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice
under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the
Act') dated 24.03.2026 has been issued by the respondent No.4 to
which the petitioner submitted reply on 13.04.2026. Even before
reply is considered and enquiry is conducted in the impugned
proceedings, there is interference by the respondent No.4 and his
subordinates.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the
basis of written instructions, submitted that the petitioner has
approached this Court with unclean hands. The respondent No.4 is
conducting enquiry and so far orders are not passed under Section
6 of the Act and due procedure will be followed as directed by this
Court by order dated 13.03.2026 in WP.No.7915 of 2026. Petitioner
is proceeding with building construction even when the impugned
proceedings are staring at him and without there being any cause
of action, the petitioner approached this Court.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing
for respondent No.9 submitted that there is no interference by
police officials nor any requisition received from the GHMC or
revenue officials seeking any police assistance.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is interference by
the respondent authorities in building construction even before
order is passed under Section 6 of the Act. The subject land is not
surplus land and in fact, certificate was issued by the Special officer
and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, bearing
No.ULC.D.Dis.No.C5/1328/80 dated 05.05.1981 stating that the
land held by Mr. Shaik Mahboob Ali and others is agricultural land
and is not attracted by Section 2(O) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. Subsequently, the land was sold under
registered sale deed bearing document No.4801/81 dated
13.07.1981 in favour of one Smt. Azeeza Banu W/o.Syed Gulam
Yazdani. The Said Azeeza Banu sold the subject property to
Smt. Naiz Rizwan under registered sale deed bearing No.3214/95
dated 13.03.1995 and later the property was gifted by her to the
petitioner under Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document
No.4258/2022 dated 22.09.2022.
6. In the light of the above submissions, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 not to
interference with the peaceful possession and building continuation
in respect of the land admeasuring 919 sq. yards in Plot No.12
(admeasuring 247 Sq. Yards), Plot.No.13 (admeasuring 260 sq.
yards) and Plot No.14 (admeasuring 412.00 sq. yards), Sy.No.134,
Kismathpur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not
to take coercive steps against the petitioner until the enquiry is
concluded in proceedings No.B/410/2026 and orders are passed.
The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
April 15, 2026
Note: Issue CC today
(B/o) DSK
