Dismissed¶46

Chennuri Venkata Bhardwaj v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Oct 2025WP/14617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition dismissed; TGSPDCL 33/11 KV electrical substation construction; alleged encroachment of Survey No.451/1 (Ac.0.30 gts) versus allotted Survey No.451/2 (0.22 acres, possession 07.03.2022); disputed questions of fact on land boundaries, title and possession not amenable to Article 226 writ jurisdiction; petitioner relegated to civil court remedy; Articles 14, 21, 300A invoked; liberty to approach civil court; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the civil court for appropriate relief; no order as to costs. ¶46

Chennuri Venkata Bhardwaj Vs The state of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the civil court for appropriate relief; no order as to costs.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents illegally occupied the petitioner's land in Sy.No.451/1 (Ac.0.30 gts), Yadgiripally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, and commenced construction of a 33/11 KV electrical substation thereon without lawful acquisition proceedings, violating Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. +1 more

¶34

Ratio / Principle

When the adjudication of rights requires examination of complex and disputed facts, including land boundaries, title and possession, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court; such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed; however, the petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief, with no order as to costs.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) - Alleged encroachment by TGSPDCL and construction of 33/11 KV electrical substation on petitioner's land in Sy.No.451/1, Ac.0.30 gts, Yadgiripally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, claimed to be inherited under a notarized Will dated 31.10.2019, without acquisition proceedings - Respondents (per counter affidavit) contended that the District Collector allotted 0.22 acres in adjoining Survey No.451/2 Government land, possession handed over on 07.03.2022, and the survey numbers are distinct - HELD: The dispute essentially pertains to identification of boundaries and alleged encroachment, involving disputed questions of fact (boundaries, title, possession) that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the settled principle is that where adjudication of rights requires examination of complex and disputed facts, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court - Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the civil court; no costs.

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCIOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO; 14617 OF 2025

¶9

Between

¶10

Chennuri Venkata Bhardwaj, S/o RamChandar Rao Aged 38yrs Occ Pvt.Employee, Rl/o. Plot.No. 501, Sreeditya Nilayam, Shivalayam Road, Opp lndian Bank, lt4anikonda, Puppalguda. KV. Ranga Reddy.500089.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1- The state of Telangana, rep. By lts Principal Secretary Power and Energy Department Secretariat Hyderabad Telangana.500022.

¶14

The Southern power Distribution company of Telangana Lt.d, Rep. By lts chairman and managing director having its corporate office at 6'1 50- mint compound, hyderabad,500063.

¶15

The chief Engineer, Commercial/Corporate office/ TGSPDCL.

¶16

.The superintending Engineer / Operation/ Nalgonda circle TGSPDCL Nalgonda.

¶17

The Divisional Engineer / Operation/ l,/iryalaguda Division, TGSPDCL Miryalaguda.

¶18

The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶19

Revenue Divisional officer, It/iryalagyda Division, Nalgonda

¶20

The Thahsildar, lVliryalaguda l,4andal, Itrliryalaguda.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate WriUOrder or Direction more Particularly one in Nature of Writ of l\rlandamus. i). To declare that the action of the respondents illegally Occupying and constructing 33/1 l KV electrical substation on the Petitioners land in Sy.No.451/1, Ac.0.30 gts Yadgiripally Village, [Vliryalaguda

¶23

tvlandal, Nalgonda District without initiating^{any lawful acclti ,ilion proceedings as} illegal, arbitrary and violation of^principles of^{Natural lustice, against the} fundamental rights^guaranteed under the^{IndianconStitllti(n particularly Article} 14. 21 & 300-4 constitution of lndia. ii).^{To direct the Respc llent No.5 to vacate} the Suit schedule^propedy and^{restore possession to the p,e t lcner-}

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{cir lrmstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the writ^{petition, the HighC)(rr ri may be pleased to} stay further construction of the^33/1 1 KV^{Electrical Substa i n in an extent of Ac.} 0.30 Gts in Sy.No. 451/1 situated at Yadgiripally^{Village\liryalaguda ltilandal,} Nalgonda district pending disposal of the^{instant matter.}

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIDHAR^BONKURI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR^ENERGY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 to 5:^{SRI N.SREEDHA IREDDY,SC FOR} TGSPDCL

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.6 to 8: GP^{FOR REVENI' E}

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No. 14617 of 2025

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioner claims to be'-i-re al-,s^lute orvner and possessor of Iand aclmeasuring Ac.0.30 gts in Survey No.45 i / 1 of^Yadgiripalli Village, Mirl'alaguda N{ar-rdal, Na,lgonda District, sard to^have been inherited through a notarized Will dated^31.i0.2019 execnled b1' Iate Smt. Gadc Yashodamma. Petitioner^alleges illegal encroachment b1' lhe oflicials of the^{TelarLganaState} Southern Pou'er Distribution Company Limited^{(TGSPDCL),who} have allegedly commenced construction of a 33111^{KV Electric} Substation on the petitioner's 1and,^despite the^{existenceof a} mutation and issuance of a Pattadar Passbook in^{his name.}

¶35

Heard Sri Bonkuri Sridhar, learned^{counsel for petitioner} and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing^Counselfor TGSPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to^{5. Perused the record.}

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner submits^{that the main} grievance of the petitioner is that the officia-ls of^TGSPDCL,in collusion u'ith the revenue authorities, have^{trespassedinto his} private land ald dispossessed him rvithout due^{process, in}

¶37

.- \r

¶38

¶39

NBK, J rp l15l7 -2015

¶40

violation of Articlcs 14, 21 , and 30O A ol thr. (lonstitrLtion of India. He further contended that p:iitioner. rvas in lalr.ful possession of the subject lar-rcl, :rnd despite h.-ti ng bror-rght the issirr to the trotice ol thc Revenue Divisional C l icer' (RDC.,1 ar-rci other authorities through multiple representa r rns ar-td under the RTI Act, no remedial action *.as taken. H,: Lrrther submits that the construction is being carrie d out w,it1r ,r-rt acquisition, compensation, or follou-ing an,: lau,ful proc,-: j rre. Therclore, pral,ed this Conrt to direct the respondent No. ; to vacrlt e the suit Schedule property ar-rd restore possession tc tte petitione r.

¶41

Learned Star-rding Counsel for the TGSpDt.l . appearir-rg for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, filed a counter afficje..it stating that there is no encroachment upon the petitioner,s lr r.d. it is statecl that based on the request of TGSpDCL, the I) rtrict Collector, Nalgonda, allotted lald admeas uring O.22 acre s in Survev No. 451 /2, ald possession rvas handed over tc^,IGSpDCL on 07 .03.2022. The construction is being underta < rn in the said Government land and not in Survey No. 451/1 as rJleged by the petitioner. It is contended that there appeeu.r to be some confusion on the part of the petitioner in icien _ .ication of the

¶42

NBK, J Np 14617-l0l-)

¶43

property. it is further contended that the iand ,,vas identified by the Revenue Department prior to such allotment and that the survey numbers are distinct.

¶44

Upon consicleration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is evident thar the dispute essentially pertains to identilication of boutrdaries and allegecl encroachment, q.hich involves disputed questions of ract that cannot be adjudicated in exercise of r,r'rit jurisdiction under Article 226 ol the constitution of InCia. It is a s.^ttled principle of lau, tl-rat rvhen the adjudication ol rights requires examination of complex and disputed facts, includir-rg iand boundaries, titlc, and possession, the approprrate remedv lies before the competent civil court.

¶45

Accordinglv the u-rit pctition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to approach the civil court lor appropriate relief. There shall be no other as to costs.

¶46

.-,

¶47

SD/.1. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,