[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Cheemala Butchaiah vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 26 March, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 27306 OF 2019
DATE: 26.03.2026
Between:
Cheemala Butchaiah
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and Others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Police
Authorities in taking over the land of the petitioner to an extent of
3.50 acres as against Sy.No.55/29 to an extent of Acs. 2.17
guntas and in Sy.No.55/47 over an extent of 4 acres situated at
Kachanapally Village, Gundala Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem
district and constructing Police Station over the extent of 3.50
acres of land and occupation of the land without following due
process of law and without payment of just compensation as
illegal, arbitrary and violates Article 21 and 300(A) of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to
pay land acquisition compensation for 3.50 acres of land over
which the Police Station was constructed with interest or 18
percentage per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of
realization and to pass...."
2. Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents,
particularly the police authorities, have unlawfully taken possession of
the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents, comprised in Survey
No. 55/29 and in Survey No. 55/47, situated at Kachanapally Village,
Gundala Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. It is contended that
such occupation has been effected without initiating any proceedings
under the applicable land acquisition laws or following due process of
law, thereby infringing the petitioner's constitutional right to property
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
3.2. It is further urged that even assuming the land is required for a
public purpose, the respondents are bound to acquire the same
strictly in accordance with law, particularly under the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. On these grounds, the
present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to the
respondents to initiate lawful acquisition proceedings and compensate
the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home, on instructions, submits that the allegations made by the
petitioner are factually incorrect and misconceived. It is stated that the
land utilized for construction of the police station is not situated in
Survey Nos. 55/29 or 55/47, as claimed by the petitioner, but in
Survey No. 55/124. It is further submitted that an extent of Ac.5.18
guntas of Government land in the said survey number was duly
allotted to the police department by the Revenue Divisional Officer
vide proceedings dated 08.11.2011, and advance possession was
also handed over pursuant thereto and the police station has been
constructed entirely within the boundaries of the said Government
land and is presently functional. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner
that his private land has been encroached upon is wholly unfounded.
The learned Government Pleader accordingly prays for dismissal of
the writ petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either
side and perused the materials on record.
6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is predicated on the
allegation of unauthorized occupation of his land in Survey Nos. 55/29
and 55/47. However, the documentary material produced by the
respondents indicates that the land allotted for the police station is
situated in Survey No. 55/124, which is Government land, and that
such allotment was made through due administrative process.
7. In view of the above, there appears to be a clear dispute with
regard to the identity, location, and boundaries of the land in question.
Prima facie, the survey numbers claimed by the petitioner and those
relied upon by the respondents are distinct. Determination of such
disputed questions of fact, particularly relating to title, possession, and
localization of land would necessarily require appreciation of
evidence, including revenue records and possibly oral evidence.
8. It is a settled principle of law that proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution of India are not intended for adjudication of
seriously disputed questions of fact, especially those involving civil
rights and title to immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, 1993 SCC 1 306, and
subsequent decisions has consistently held that where adjudication
requires detailed examination of evidence, the appropriate remedy
lies before a competent civil court or other statutory forum.
9. In the instant case, since the dispute essentially pertains to the
identification and alleged encroachment of land, this Court is of the
considered view that the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for
adjudicating such issues. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his
remedies before the competent civil forum or appropriate authority in
accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, in view of the apparent discrepancy in the survey
numbers relied upon by the petitioner and the respondent police
authorities, this Court is of the considered opinion that no adjudication
on merits is warranted in the present proceedings. However, while
disposing of the writ petition, the rights of the petitioner are expressly
reserved to avail such remedies as may be available under law, if the
cause of action still subsists. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 26.03.2026
CHS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.27306 OF 2019
Dated: 26.03.2026
CHS
