Kande Pawan Kumar Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kande Pawan Kumar Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: respondent No.5 (RDO) directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeal (online application No.AOD022400064972 dated 08.05.2024) strictly in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all interested parties and affording hearing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of a copy of the order; the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 6 to maintain status quo over the subject property till then; petitioner to cooperate in the appeal and survey and to obtain Gram Panchayat permission before constructing the compound wall; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.6 (with respondent No.4) in allegedly encroaching upon the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.588, admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts, at Meerkhanpet village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without notice, land acquisition notification or due process of law, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the respondents must return the land pending completion of survey. +3 more

Court's answer

The petitioner has not obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat (within whose limits the subject property lies) for construction of the compound wall; he must therefore obtain such permission for construction of the compound wall and thereafter proceed with construction.

Ratio / Principle

On the material placed, there is a dispute with regard to the identification of the property: according to the petitioner his land is in Sy.No.588/e1, while according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue the petitioner is trying to encroach land in Sy.No.112 of the very same village; therefore respondent No.5 has to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (application No.AOD022400064972 dated 08.05.2024) strictly in accordance with law, putting the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing, and to complete the exercise within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶51
Until disposal of the appeal, the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 6 shall maintain status quo with regard to the subject property in all respects; the petitioner shall cooperate with respondent No.5 in disposing of the appeal and in conducting the survey.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (K. Lakshman, J.), 23.09.2025, disposed of a writ petition by Kande Pawan Kumar, claiming absolute ownership and possession of Ac.3-32 gts in Sy.No.588 of Meerkhanpet village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (supported by passbook and title deed), who alleged that respondent Nos. 4 and 6 attempted to dispossess him and demolished his compound wall without due process while his appeal against the Tahsildar's memo dated 12.06.2024 refusing survey/demarcation (F-line application dated 02.12.2024) was pending before the RDO as online application No. AOD022400064972 dated 08.05.2024. Observing a live dispute over identification of the property — the State asserting the petitioner was encroaching Government land in Sy.No.112 (Ac.1059 guntas) handed to TSIIC for Pharma City (Future City) in 2016 — the Court directed the RDO (respondent No.5) to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law after notice and hearing within 30 days, directed all parties to maintain status quo meanwhile, and required the petitioner to obtain Gram Panchayat permission before constructing the compound wall. No costs.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of respondent No.6 (with respondent No.4) in allegedly encroaching upon the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.588, admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts, at Meerkhanpet village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without notice, land acquisition notification or due process of law, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the respondents must return the land pending completion of survey.¶16
The court held
The petitioner has not obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat (within whose limits the subject property lies) for construction of the compound wall; he must therefore obtain such permission for construction of the compound wall and thereafter proceed with construction.ratio¶48
2.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to survey and demarcation of the subject land by fixing boundaries, in view of the Tahsildar's memo dated 12.06.2024 refusing the request and the appeal (online application No.AOD022400064972 dated 08.05.2024) pending before respondent No.5 (RDO).¶28
The court held
The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (application No.AOD022400064972 dated 08.05.2024) strictly in accordance with law, putting the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing, and to complete the exercise within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶51
3.
Identification of the property: whether the petitioner's land lies in Sy.No.588/e1 as claimed by him, or whether he is encroaching upon Government land in Sy.No.112 (stated to be Ac.1059 guntas, handed over to respondent No.4/TSIIC for Pharma City (Future City) in 2016) of the same village.¶48
The court held
On the material placed, there is a dispute with regard to the identification of the property: according to the petitioner his land is in Sy.No.588/e1, while according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue the petitioner is trying to encroach land in Sy.No.112 of the very same village; therefore respondent No.5 has to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner.ratio¶48
4.
Whether, pending disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.4 should be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the subject land (I.A. No.1 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC).¶18