Dismissed

Ganta Linganna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025WP/17876/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged officials interfered with his peaceful possession of land at Kotarmoor village by excavation without notice. The court noted the land had been taken into official possession via panchanama in the vendor's presence and the Collector's proceedings were not challenged; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed without costs, miscellaneous applications closed.

Ganta Linganna Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^s2ee l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 17876 OF 2025

¶9

Ganta Linganna, S/o. Muthena,^{Aged about 72 years, Occ- Retd.SBH} Employee FUo. H.No. 1-21lB, Perkit Village,^{Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary Revenue Department} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District C6llector, Nizamabad^{Collectorate Building Nizamabad District}

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Armoor^{Division, Nizamabad}

¶15

The Tahsildar, Armoor, Mandal Nizamabad^District

¶16

The Dy. Executive Engineer, lrrigation^{Sub- DivisionNo. 2, lrrigation} Department, Armoor

¶17

Arriroor Municipality, Rep. by its CommisSioner^{Armoor, Nizamabad District.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus declaring the action^{of Respondentsin interferingwith peaceful} possession of the Petitioner by excavating^part of the^{land admeasuring 337.73} sq. yds., in Plot Nos. 3^{(Part) and12 (Part) situatedin Sy. Nos. 2211.2213.271A} and 37lAA situated at Kotarmoor^{village, Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality,} Nizamabad District without notice as being^{arbitrary,illegal, violativeof principles} of natural^justice and Articles^14, 21^{and 300-A of The constitutionof lndia} consequently forbear the Respondents^{frominterferingthe aforesaid premisesof} the Petitioner.

¶20

:1 0F

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto pass} an order restraining the Respondents^{from interfering with the Petitioners peaceful} possession over land admeasuring 337.73 sq.^yds., in Plot Nos.3^(Part) and¹² (Part) situated in Sy. Nos. 2211,2213,271A and 37lAA situated at^Kotarmoor villag6. Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality,^{NizamabadDistrict.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAN^{MOHAN REDDY} Counset for the Respondent Nos.l^{TO 4: SRI L.RAVINDER,} P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP, AGP FOR IRRI& CAD Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.KRISHNA REDDY,^{SC FOR MPCL} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶25

ETITI N No.l 876 o12025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in interfering with the^{peaceful possession} of the petitioner by excavating part of the land admeasuring 337.73 sq.yds., in Plot Nos.3 (Part) arrd 12^(Part), situated in Survey Nos.22l1, 2213, 27lA and 37lAA situated at^{Kotarmoor village,} Armoor Mandal, Armoor Municipality, Nizamabad^District (subject property).

¶28

Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit^that petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. He would submit that petitioner is bonafide^purchaser of the said land under registered sale deed vide document^No.1925 of 20 13 dated 27 .04.2013 from Sri Pedda Bajanna. He would^further submit that originally Sri P.Rajeshwar Reddy and P. Veda^Prakash Reddy were the owners and^possessors of agricultural^land admeasuring Ac.l.22^guntas in Survey Nos.2ill,^{2211, 2213} situated at Kotarmoor village, Armoor^Mandal, Perkit

¶29

Grampanchayath. Thereafter, the said land has been purchased by the vendor of the petitioner. He further submit that land has been converted from agricultural land to Non-agricutural land vide proceedings No.A3/6 12512010 dated 03.1 1.201 I under the provisions of Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for NonAgricultural Purposes), Act, 2006. He relied upon the demarcation certificate dated 24.12.2010 along with map which demonstrate that there is no govemment land included in the proposed layout. He would further submit that the said layout has been approved vide Lr.No.L.Dis.No.l304lHRO/Hl dated 24.02.2011 though L.P.No.07l201I/HRO of Regional Deputy Director, Town Country

¶30

Planning, which shows the subject land as commercial area. He would further submit that a few individuals claiming to be from the office of respondent No.4, 5 and 6 have attempted to interfere with the possessi<in of the petitioner on 16.06.2025 by digging in the Iand but the same was resisted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

Leamed counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

¶32

land in question has clear title flown from the original pattedars t

¶33

-t

¶34

through which the petitioner has become successor, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner is illegal and thus, would seek to allow the writ petition.

¶35

Per contra, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue submits that admittedly the land in^question has been converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land vide proceedings dated 03.11.2011 under the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes), Act, 2006 and further submits that demarcation has also been done and demarcation certificate dated 24.12.2010 along with map is^issued stating that no government land is included in the^proposedlay out and layout permission has been given vide^proceedings dated 24.02.2011 . through Regional Deputy Director, Town Country Planning and further submits that respondent Nos.4^{has never} interfered with the subject property. He further submits that^the land in question has already been taken over by the^official respondents in the presence ofthe vendor ofthe^{petitioner ije', one} Mr. Bogadameedi Pedda Bajanna. In^{the case No.F,213412020,}

¶36

¶37

dated 28.05.2025, a^joint survey has been conducted in the presence of the vendor of the petitioner. Accordingly, consequential action has been taken and land has been taken into the possession of official respondents in the presence of Panchas and hence question of interference into the subject property does not arise. He would further submit that all these aspects are not brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner and the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings issued by the District Collector in Case No.E2/34/2025, dated 28.05-2025 where the appellant is none other than the vendor of the petitioner herein and ifaggrieved, the petitioner ought to have taken necessary recourse against the vendor ofthe petitioner herein and the said proceedings is not under challenge before this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is filed under misconception and hence, would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.5 submits that land in question pertains to Canal D-82/2lllT which has become defunct about 40 to 50 years and as per the directions of District

Collectoq Nizamabad in 2022,joint survey of defunct canals was conducted to demarcate the canal boundary. After conducting survey, the District Collector has instructed the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Armoor to take up fencing activity along the defunct canals to safeguard the Government Property and take up plantation in that area under Haritha Haram Programme. He would further submit that the property in question has been converted into non-agricultural land and subsequently layout permission has also been taken without putting respondent No.5 on notice under whose possession the property is lying and the same is perverse. Hence would submit that proceedings have been issued by respondent No.2 and in the said proceedings it is stated that the said land belong to the irrigation department. He would further submit that by virtue of the same nothing would persist in the writ petition and. would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and upon^perusal of the material available on record, it appears that in the^presence of^the

¶44

¶45

¶46

petitioner's vendor only the land has been taken into physical possession of the offrcial respondents by conducting panchanama and also it is noticed that impugned proceedings issued by District Collector in Case No.E2l34/2025 dated 28.05.2025 are not challenged.

¶47