Disposed

Mohammed Abbu v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2025WP/14951/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming ownership of plots in Borabanda, Hyderabad sought protection against threatened dispossession by revenue authorities without notice. The State contended the land was government land subject to encroachment. The Court directed strict compliance with Supreme Court demolition guidelines before any eviction action.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow Supreme Court demolition/eviction guidelines strictly before initiating eviction; liberty to claim damages/compensation if violated.

Mohammed Abbu Vs The state of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^32s6I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14951 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 f/ohammed Abbu, S/o. Shaik Madharsaab, Aged 57 Years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 8-4-48211, Jamai Masjid Lane, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Parsha Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Gowri Shakar, Aged 53 Years, Occupalion. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 8-4-5441781D, B.Shankar Lal Nagar, Enagadda, Hyderabad.

¶11

J M. Ramchander Naik, S/o. lrl.Jaganath, Aged 65 Years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 8-4-550/65, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶12

.,...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep by its principle secretary, revenue department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Diskict Collector, Hyderabad District, Telangana.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad District, Telangana.

¶17

The Tashildhar cum Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana.

¶18

,....RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondent No.4 not to interfere/Disturb with the (1) Total Property H.No. 8-4-37118.1166 Part, admeasuring 200 Square Yards on Plot No-25, in survey No-'l28/'1 , Situated at Borabanda, Erragada, Yousufguda, Hyderabad (2) Total Property H.No. B-4371161166 Part, admeasuring 200 Square Yards on Plot No-22, in survey No-

¶20

'128l1 , Situate(i et Elorabanda, Erragada, Yousufguda, Hydere bad, (3) Total Property H.No. 8'4-:i^z1lB/166 Part, Admeasuring 200 Square Ya ds on Plot^No- 23,' in survel' N,r- l2Bl'1 , Situated at Borabanda, [:rra1lada, Yousufguda, Hyderabad witl'ro.rt t:llowing due^procedure of law and violating t.re^principles of natural^justice and ;rrnsequently direct the Respondentsi no to Jispossess the petitioners frorr tl're ;rbove said house.

¶21

|.A.NO:1 OF 202a'

¶22

Petition lJrle' Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the crrcumslances stated in the affidavit filed irr s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct Respondent \c.4 to stay all further proceedings in regetrds to the⁽¹ ) Total Property H.No. 8-4-l|^/1/B/'166 Part, admeasuring 200 Square Yards on Plot No25, in survey \rr.'l 2811, Situated at Borabanda, [:rra1lada Yousufguda, Hyderabad (2) T, ,ta Property H.No. 8 -4-3 71 I B /16 6 Par, admeasuring 200 Square Yards c r^)lot No-22, in survey No-1 2Bl1 , Situa ied at Borabanda, Erragada, Yousu"gu,!,:, Hyderabad, (3) Total Property H.No. l-4-:;71lB/166 Part, Admeasuring 200 li 1:are Yards on Plot No-23, in survey Nc,-121il1 , Situated at Borabanda, Erraqe< ir. Yousufguda, Hyderabad pending dispot,al of the writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Peti[ioners : M/s JMS LAW FIRM ADVOCATE S A,,ID ASSOCIATES

¶24

Counsel forthe Flespondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made thr-' following ORDER

¶26

¶27

II l i I I

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.I/.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.L495l of2o25

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is liled seeking the following reliel

¶31

"-...ro issue a utrit ord_er or direction more parlicularlu one in the nature of writ of Mandamus d;;t;;"';;;;;7ir"" "t ,n" Respondent No 4 nit to int.e.rfere/Dbt"i _'iinliJ'il1 rrt t Properly H.No.8-4-37 j / B/ tba part, "i^."i}ri)ro 200 seuare yards on ptot No.25 i" ""iii' N.bit"i1iiruoor"a * B^oraba nda, Enagad a, yo u s ufgud aj n a a ", aii" izj ront Propertu H.No.B-4..?71 /6t tci;" i",t,"""i,i"iJrri"1, 200 Borabanda Enagad.a seuare^yards on ptor No.i2 yousufguda'agi.;;"a"'i3i in "ri.i ,ii6'a";Zi:|)o"o rrt"t", Properts H.No.8.4-371/B/ r ad i",t,'")i^Zli",iil roo Bombandq seuare^yards Enagad.a, on ptot tio.is yousufgud.ai i" "ii"s i"iiiTi&r|i1""o ngi.rolia"';uftnout", fottotrins due procedure or u- Lia uatitini"liJitr"Jr*" "f natural justice and consiquentlg direct ,n.'iLri."ili* ".t Io disposse-ss the petitio;tirs front the aboue sqid house and. to pass..-.."

¶32

It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of H.No.g-4 371/B/166 part, admeasuring 200 Sq.yards on Plot No.25 in Sy.No. 12g/1, situated at Borabanda, Erragadda, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.2749 of 2015, dated 15.06.2015; petitionlr No.2 is the absolute owncr and possessor of H.No.g_4 371/B/166 Part, admeasuring 2O0 Sq.yarcls on plot No.22 in Sy.No.128/1, situated at Borabanda, Erragadda, yousufguda,

¶33

\.1\

¶34

¶35

Hyderabad t:r virtue of registered sale deed bearing dor:ument No.2728 of 2C I5, dared 12.06.2O15; ald petitior-rer No.I is^the absolute oivrr,:;- and possessor of H.No.8-4-37^| lB / l6rt^Part, admeasu-irg 1lO0 Sq.yards on Plot No.23 in^{Sy.No.128l 1,} situated rt E,r,rabanda, Erragadda, Yousufguda,^{hytlera cad by} virtue of rcgi'il-ered sale deed bearing document^{)1o.2729 of} 2015, daled ll) 06.2015. The grievance of the^{per:itior-ters is that} despite the sanre, respondent No.4, without isstring aly^notice is trying 1o^,1is possess them from the subject^properti:s

¶36

ka rr erl counsel for the petitioners subnritted tl'Lat the action ol rt:r4rondent No.4 in iilegally entering tn -o the petitioners pr )perty, along with their henchmen and heary crurnes a.r(.^t.r ving to demolish the houses of the^pett tioners without iss;u:r r;1 notice, amounts to violation of plinci cles of natural^jrrs tic: and also Articles 14, 2l and 30t) A of the Constitutiou,r' India.

¶37

Per^,. o r [:a, learned Assistant Government^])1ear ler for revenue appez ring for the respondents, on instructilns, would submit that. t.lr,: lands in Sy.No. 128/1, situated at Ilorabanda, Erragadda, Ycu sufguda, Hyderabad are Governnrent lanls and the petiti,,-ners are not having any right or title tr er:croz.ch the Governm,ln - l, rrds. He further submitted that there rre ;erious disputes wr :h r:gard to the identihcation ald localizzLtior of the

¶38

¶39

subjcct properties and discrepan:ies with regarcl to the sa-le rieeds of the petitioners, arld claiming that they are the owners of the subject properties, the pctitioners herein ar-e making efforts to encroach upon the Government lands.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the respondent authorities are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon,ble Ape.,. Court in Re: Directions in the ntdtte" of d.enolltion of structurest al;id Rqiendra Kumar BarJatga And. Another as. U.P. Aoas Eaam Vika.s parishold. and. others2 strictly, before initiating any action for eviction of the petitioncrs from the subject properties. It is needless to observe that if the respondents do not follow the a-foresaid directions, thc petitioners are at liberty to claim damages/compensation, in accordance with law.

¶41