Neerati Yadagiri Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Neerati Yadagiri Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: respondent No. 3 (Tahsildar) directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession of the subject property without following due procedure; liberty preserved to the Tahsildar to take action on the grounds that the land is a water body and the compound wall was constructed without permission; petitioners restrained from further compound-wall construction without prior permission, failing which the Chowdaryguda Gram Panchayat official may act; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, particularly respondent No. 3 (the Tahsildar), could interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and agricultural operations over the subject lands in Chowdaryguda Village without following the procedure laid down under law.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 3 (the Tahsildar) not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property without following the due procedure laid down under law.

Ratio / Principle

The direction does not preclude respondent No. 3 from taking action against the petitioners on the ground that the subject property is in a water body and that the petitioners constructed the compound wall without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

Key takeaways

The petitioners shall not proceed with the construction of the compound wall without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.ratio¶36
If the petitioners construct the compound wall without prior permission, the official of the Chowdaryguda Gram Panchayat (Panchayat Secretary) is at liberty to take action against the petitioners.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Lakshman, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by agriculturists of Narkhoda/Chowdaryguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, claiming absolute ownership and possession of Ac. 0-19 gts in Sy.Nos.240/AA2 & 241/E2, Ac. 0-19 gts in Sy.Nos.240/AA3 & 241/E3 and Ac. 0-9 1/2 gts in Sy.Nos.240/AA5/1 & 241/E5/1, and alleging that the Tahsildar was obstructing agricultural operations and had demolished their compound wall without due procedure. The Assistant Government Pleader (Revenue) submitted that the land lay in a water body, that the latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds had been obtained by misrepresentation, and that the wall was built without permission, but that action would follow due procedure. The Court directed the Tahsildar not to interfere with possession without following due procedure, preserved his liberty to act on the water-body and unauthorised-construction grounds, restrained the petitioners from proceeding with the compound wall without prior permission from the competent authority (failing which the Chowdaryguda Gram Panchayat official could act), and made no order as to costs.

[³¹⁶⁸ J

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, IHE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 26200 0F 2025

Between:

1 Neerati Yadag.iri, S/o Samaiah aged about 47 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H No. 3- 341'1 , Narkhoda Village, SFamshabad Mandal, Ranga"Reddy District

2 1te91q]i $.al!,.^{S/o Samaiah aged about41 yearc, Occ Agricutture, hlo} A^f.to 3- 3412, Narkhoda Shamshabad lVlandal, RJrnga Reddy district.

J Neerati^Chandrudu, S/o. Samaiah aged aboui 41 yeais, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H. No 3- 34, Narkhoda Viilaqe, Shamshabad Mandat. Ransa R;dSJ#iJrJ?k

AND

State of Telangana, Rep. by its^principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretarial, Hyderabad.

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

3 The Tahsildar, Shamshabad [Vlandit, Ranga Reddy District.

The Station House Officer, Shamshabad^prolice St6tion, Cyberabad, R. R. District,

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia ,rri;XntT:i?"tT;: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the F{igh court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by preventing them from doing agrrcultural operations over land admeasuring Ac. 0- 19 Gts. under sy. No. 240lAA2 and sy. No.241tE2 belongs to 1st petitioner, land admeasuring Ac. 0- 19 Gts. under Sy. No. 24O1AA3 and Sy. No.241tE3 belongs to 2 petitioner and land admeasuring Ac. 0- g y2 Gts. , under Sy. No. 240lAA5l1 and sy. No. 2411E5, 1 belongs to 3 petitioner, all are situated at Chowdaryguda Village. Shamshabad t\ilandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due procedure as contemplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, u ncon stitutiona l, violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300- A of the constitution of lndia. and consequenfly direct the respondents and their subordrnates not to interfere with peaceful possession

I

and enjoyment of the petitioners incruding their agricurturar operations over the subject lands, without following the procedure as contemprated under raw

IA NO:1OF 2025 petition under Sr I 51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fif eO rn s3 iupport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein and their subordinates not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners incruding their agricurturar operations over Iand ad r.1 r,,i^:,:": s y No 24 1, E2 0",".n J,"j:IT"ffJ:,] :l',;,"il,,il; Xl admea under s u Sy rin No. g Ac 240lAA30_ e, r' o1r"l,)*,.'.t;'i:^{tT:il r;i} :J'T:l;: # berongs to 3rd petitioner' arl are situated at chowdaryguda Virage, shamshabad Mandar' Ranga Reddy District, without fo,owing due procedure as contemprated under law, pending disposal of the writ petition

Counset for the petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED eUADRt

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI L. RAVINDER

AGP FOR REVENUE

counsel for Respondenr No. 4:

i8,rr;Sfi,flIfiE,

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETI^{TION No.262()0 0F 2025}

ORAL^ORDER:

Heard learned^{counsel for thepetitioners'} Mr.L.Ravinder,^{learned AssistantGovernmentPleaderfor} Revenue^{appearingfor the respondentNos'l to 3 and} Mr.N.Sridhar,^{learnedAssistant Governmentfor Home} appearing^{for resPondent No'4'}

The Petitioners^{herein are claimingthat they are the} absolute^{owners and possessorsof land admeasuring} Ac.o-19^{gts in sy.No.24OlAA2& Sv'No'24llE,2'Ac'0-19} gts in^{Sy.No.240lAA3 & Sy'No'24llE3and Ac'O-9/z in} Sy.Nos.24O/AA5/1^{e' 24llE5/1respectivelY'} ,situated^at Chowdaryguda^{Vitlage, ShamshabadMandal'Ranga Reddy} District.^{In proof of the same, they havefiled copies of the} latest pattadar^{passbooks and titie deeds' They are in} possession^{of the subject property'Even then' respondent} No.3 is interfering^{with the possessionof the petitioners} over the subject^{propertyaldpreventing them from} carrying out agricultural^{operations, r'r'ithoutfollowingdue} procedure laid^{down under lanvThey have also}

.-

2

demolished the compound wall and in proof of the same, they have filed photographs. Challenging the said action of the 3.a respondent, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

Whereas, learned Assistant Government pleader lor Revenue, on instructions would submit that the subject property is in water body and petitioners have obtained latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds bv mrsrepresenting the facts. The petitioners have constructed the compound wall without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. However, the 3d respondent u,ill take action against the petitioners by following due procedure laid down under law.

In the light of the said submission, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the 3.a respondent not to lnterfere with the possession of the petitioners, over the subject property, without foilowing due procedure 1aid dou,n under law. However, this order will not preclude the 3,a respondent in taking any action against the petitioners on the ground that the subject body is in water body and the petitioners constructed compound wall without obtaining

3

permission from the competent authority. Further,^the petitioners shall not proceed with the construction of^the compound wall without obtaining^{prior permissionfrom} the competent authority, failing '*'hich^{the Jrcr ls5psndgnl} or panchayat secretarlr-chowdaryguda^{grampanchayatare} at liberty to take action^{againstthe petitioners. There shall} be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions^{pending, if any,} shall stand closed.

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The District Collector, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.} 2. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District} 5. fn. Siit.n House Officer,^{Shamshabad PoliceStation} '^{Cyberabad, R R'} District.

One CC to Sri Mohd Moin^{Ahmed Quadri Advocate} [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Revenue ,Hiqh^{Court for the State of Telangana} [!i-U^ll O. f*o CCs to GP For Home,High^{Court for the Stateof Telangana} [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies

IMBC BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 02tOgt2O2S

!
- !l
I
15sEPM
iia!
,:
"i-31:1616;rf--C

ORDER

WP.No.26200 of 2O2S

I

<br>

x(

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WTHOUT COSTS