Disposed

Shaik Mohammad Khasim v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025WP/31853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claimed ownership of plots in Sy.No.138/1, Velugumatla village, under registered sale deeds and alleged interference by irrigation and revenue authorities, who contended petitioners were encroaching government land in adjoining survey numbers. The court directed the Tahsildar to survey and demarcate the disputed lands after notice, with status quo to be maintained meanwhile.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shaik Mohammad Khasim Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31853 OF 2024

¶7

Between

¶8

Shaik Mohammad Khasim, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Hussain, Aged about⁵³ years,Occ. Business R/o.H.No. 2-26, Khazipuram (Vig), Madhira Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

Mohammad Gouse, S/o.Hussain, Aged about 51^years,Occ. Business, R/o.H.No2-26/1, Khazipuram Village, Atukuru Post, Ivladhira Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

Mohammad Zameer, S/o.Hussain, Aged about^{44 years,Occ. Govt.Employee,} R/o.H.No2-26/2, Khazipuram Village, Atukuru Post, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District.

¶11

Shaik Nazeer, S/o.Hussain, Aged about 43 years,Occ. Business, Rl/o.H.No.226, Khazipuram Village, Atukuru Post, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District-

¶12

Shaik Ameer, S/o.Hussain, Aged about 41 years,Occ. Business R/o,H.No.22611, Khazipuram Village- Atukuru Post, Madhira lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, lnigation and CAD Department Secretariate Hyderabad.

¶16

The Chief Engineer, lrrigation department, Khammam.

¶17

The Superintending Engineer, NSP Division, lrrigation department, at Khammam.

¶18

The Executive Engineer, NW Division, lrrigation department, at Khammam.

¶19

The Deputy Engineer, NSP Division, lrrigation department at Khammam.

¶20

The Distridt Collector, Khammam District, at Khammam

¶21

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District, at Khammam.

¶22

Tahasildar, Khammam Urban, Khammarr, District.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanqes stated in the affidavil filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 8 and their subordinates in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective plots i.e., Plot No.10/ an extent ol 164'18Sq.Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2069/2O22,dt.07 -O2-

¶25

I F

¶26

2022, Plol No.1^{Part,an extent of 169-295q. yards in Sy.No.138/1 through} registered sale deed No.207012022^{d1.07-O2-2O22,Plot No.'l Part, an extent of} 173-82 sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1^{throughregisteredsaledeedNo.207112O22} dl.O7 -02-2022 of Petitioner^{No.1.Plot No.1Elan extentof '172-55Sq.Yardsin} Sy.No.'138/1 through^{registeredsale deed No.2019/2022,dt.O5-O2-2022,Plol} No.1Fl an extent of^{171-2TSq.yatds in Sy.No.138/'1 throughregistered sale deed} No.2O2Ol2O22 dt.O5-O2-2022,^{Plot No.1Q/} an^extent of^{166-73Sq.Yardsin} Sy.No 138/'l through^{registeredsale deed No.2021l2O22 dt.05-02-2o22,Plol} No.1R/ an extent of^{168-01Sq. Yards in Sy.No.'138/1through registeredsale} deed No.2022l2022^{dt.O5-02-2O22of Petitioner No.2. PlotNo.1Gan extent of} '169-99 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.952612022, dt.19-07-2022, Plot No.lPl an extent of^{165-46Sq.yardsin} Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.952712022^{d1.19-07-2022, Plot No.1H/an} extent of^168- 72Sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1^{through registeredsale deedNo.207212022dt.O7-} o2-2O22 of Petitioner No.3. Plot No.1J an extent of 164-89Sq.Yardsⁱⁿ Sy.No.138/1 through^registered sale deed^{No.218212022,dl.Og-O2-} 2022, Plol No.1ll an extent of 167-445q.yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.218312022 dl.o9-02-2o22, Plot No.1N/ an extent of 163-50Sq. Yards in Sy.No.'138/1 through registered sale deed No.218712022 d|.09-02-2022 of Petitioner No.4. Plot No.1Kl an extent of 160-35Sq.Yards in Sy.No-138/1 through registered sale deed No.952812022, d1.19-O7 -2022, Plot No.1Ll an extent of 16035Sq.yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.223312022 dt.Og-O22022, Plot No.l tvl/ an extent of 162-50Sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.959212022 dt.20-07- 2O22, of Petitioner No.s all the plols situated at Velugumatla village, Khammam District, as null, void and arbitrary and violative of^principles of natural^justice and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 8 not to interfere into the^possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over subject^plots.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 8 forthwith not to interfere into the possession and

¶29

enjoyment of the petitioners Plots i.e, Plot No,10/ an extent of 164-18Sq.Yards in Sy-No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2069/2O22d1.07-02-2022, Plot No.1 Part, an extent of^'169-295q. yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.207012022 dt.07 -O2- 2022, Plol No.1 Part, an extent ot 173-82 sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.207112022 cll.O7 -02-2022 of Petitioner No.1 Plot No.1El an extent of 172-55Sq.Yards ire Sy.No.138/.1 through registered sale deed No.201912O22, dl.O5-O2-2022. PIot No.1Fl an extent of 1712TSq.yards in Sy.No.13B/'l through registered sale deed No.2020/2022 d1.05-O22022, Plot No.1Q/ an extent of 166-73Sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2O21l2O22 dLO5-02-2022, Plot No.1R/ an extent of^'168- 01 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2022l2O22 dl.Os02-2022 of Petitioner No.2, Plot No.1 G an extent of 169-99 Sq.Yards in Sy:No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.9526/2O22, dt.19-07 -2022. Plot No.'l P/ an extent of 165-46Sq.yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.952712022 dl-19-07 -2022, Plot No.1H/ an extent of 168-72Sq. Yards in Sy.No.13B/l through registered sale deed No.207212022 dt.07^-02-2022 of Petltioner No.3. Plot No.1J an extent of 1644395 Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.218212O22, dl.O9-O2-2O22, Plot No.1 l/ an extent of 1 6744sq.yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2183/2022 d1.09-022022, Plol No.1N/ an extent of 163-50 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.13B/1 through registered sale deed No.218712022 d1.09-O2-2O22 of Petitioner No.4. PIot No.1K/ an extent of 160-35Sq.Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.952812022, dt.19-07 -2022, Plot No.1Ll an extent of 160-35Sq.yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.2233l2O22 dl.O9-02-2O22, Plol No. lNil/ an extent of 162-50Sq. Yards in Sy.No.138/1 through registered sale deed No.9592/2022 dt.20-O7 -2022, of Petitioner No.5, all plots situated at Velugumatla village, Khammam District.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. M.SARITHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP, AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 TO 8: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

_----

¶33

IION'BLE SRI.IUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶34

wRIT PETITION No.3I853 OF 2024

¶35

ORAL ORDT]R

¶36

[]e ard lcamed counsel lor thc petitioners, Mr. L. Ravindcr, Ieamed Assistant^(lovemment Pleader fbr Revenue appearing on behalf of respondcnt Nos.6 to 8 and Mr. Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development (l & CAD). appcaring on behall o f' rcspondent Nos.l to 5.

¶37

2.^'l hc petitioncrs hcrein are claiming that they are the absolute orvners and possessors o['Plot Nos.lO, 1 Part, I Part, lE, lF, lQ, lR, l(j. lP. ltl. lJ. ll. lN and lK. lL and lM, admeasuring 164.18 square yards. 169.29 square yards. I73.82 square yards, 172.55 square yards, 171.27 square 1ards, 166.73 square yards, 168.01 square yards, 169.99 square yards. l(15.46 scluare vards, 168.72 square yards, 164.89 square yards. 167.44 square yards. 163.50 square yards, and 160.35 square yards. 160.35 squarc yards and 162.50 square yards ln Survey Nos. li8/1. situatcd at Vclusumatla Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Kiammam District. on the strength of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2()69 ol- 2022. 2070 of 2022, 2071 of 2022. all dated 07.02.2022.201e ol 2022. 2020 of 2022,2021 of 2022 nd 2022 of

¶38

KL,J W P No 31E53 of2024

¶39

¶40

2022, all dated 05.02.2022,9526 of 2022,9527 of 2022, 2072 of 2022, all dated 07.02.2022,2182 of 2022,2183 of 2022.2187 of 2022, all datcd 09.02.2022 and 9528 of 2022, dated 19.07.2022,2233 of 2022, dated 09.02.2022 and 9592 of 2022, dated 20.07.2022, respectively. They are in possession of the said plots. Even then, respondent Nos.4, 5 and 8 arc interf-ering with the possession of the petitioners over thc sub,iect plots u,ithout lbllowing due procedurc laid down undcr law I'herelore. the petitioncrs herein along with cight (08) others have llled a rvrit petition vide W.P. No.1135 of 2023, to declare the action ol the albresaid respondents as illegal. Vide order dated 25.04.2023, this court disposcd olthe said writ petition with the following direction:

¶41

"....writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2022 and pass necessary orders thereon strictly in accordance to law, as expeditiously as possible. preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks fiorn the datc of receipt of copy of this order.^'l he status quo obtained as on 11.01.2023 shall be maintained by all parties till the disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2022 within the time of (8) eight weeks stipulated by this Cou(. It is further clearly obscrved that the petitioner under the guise of the order of thc status quo sha[[ not enter into Govemment Plots in Survey Nos.l37, 138/2 and 140/2 situated at

¶42

¶43

KL,J W.P No.l l85l of2024

¶44

Velugumetla Viltage, Khamman Urban Mandal, Khammam District."

¶45

i. It is thc spccific contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid representation dated 17. 12.2022 submitted by Mr. Ponguleti^Prasad Reddy. brothcr ol Mr. Pasupuleti Srinivas Rao, who is petitioners' Vendor's Vcndor. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue fumishcd copv ol-the said reprcsentation. Perusal of the same would revcal that thc said l)onguleti ['rasad Reddy submitted the said letter to respondcnt No.3. r.r'ith a rcqucst to issue NOC in respect of^pkrts in Survey Nos. 140/AA/1. l40lAN2 and 140/AA of Velugumatla Villagc, rvhereas thc petitioncrs are claiming the right over the land in Survey No.l38/l olthc very same village

¶46

[.camed counse I lbr the petitioners has also placed reliance on thc no ob.icction ccrtillcatc datcd 10.02.2011 issued by the Chief Executive lJngincer. NSLBC O&M Division, Tekulapally, Khammam and also panchanama and survcy dated 14.08.2014.

¶47

Iloth leamed Assistant Govemment Pleaden for Revenue and I & CAD, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioners are claiming their right over the subject plots in SurveyNo. 138, they are

..-.-

\ \

(l.J WI lio 31853 of 2024

¶52

trying to cncroach into thc Govemment plots in Survey Nos.l37, 138/2 and 140/2 ol Velugurnatla Village

¶53

l he aloresaid rival submissions would reveal that there is dispute with regard to identification of property belonging to the petitioners and the respondents. According to the petitioners, their plots arc ltl Sun,c)' no.1i8/1. whereas according to the rcspondents, the petitioncrs arc tn in-g to cncroach into the govemment land in Survel, Nos.l37, 138/2 and 140/2 of Velugumatla Village.

¶54

ln vierv ol the abovc. this writ pctition is disposed of dirccting respondent No.8 to conduot survey, demarcate the land in Survey Nos. 137. 138/ I . 138/2 and 140/2 of Velugumatla Village by putting the petitioncrs, all interestcd parties and the Irrigation and Command Area Development l)epzrtntcnt on notice and atkrrding thenr an opponunity. I-ibcrrf is grantcd to thc petitioncrs to submit objections and respondent No.8 shall consider tht: same. The petitioners shall also co-operatc with respondent No.[i in conducting survey. Respondent No.8 shall complete the said cxercisc rvithin thirty (30) days from the datc ol- receipt ofcopy ol this order. Till then, both thc petitioners and the respondents shall maintain .s1a1rr.s quo with regard to the subject plots in all respects. ln thc circumstanccs olthe case. there shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

¶56

l(l.J W P No 31851of2024

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶58

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶59

¶60

,TRUE COPY'

¶61

SD/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To 1 The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department Secretariate Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶64

2 The Chief Engineer, lrrigation department, Khammam. 3 The Superintending Engineer, NSP Division, lrrigation department, at Khammam.

¶65

4 The Executive Engineer, NW Division, lrrigation department, at Khammam. 5 The Deputy Engineer, NSP Division, lrrigation department at Khammam. 6 The District Collector, Khammam District, at Khammam 7 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District, at Khammam8I Tahasildar, Khammam Urban, Khammarr, District. One CC to SMT. lvl.SARITHA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

't0 Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶67

11 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

12 Two CD Copies

¶69

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 610912025

ORDER

WP.No.31853 of 2024

IHE S Tt
-)
,iJ
t"i 2 'iq 2fl2 c:
}.-
*

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

*
n

Shaik Mohammad Khasim v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shaik Mohammad Khasim v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Didige Jaipal Vs The State of Telangana

Kethavath Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sunitha Pittie Vs The State of Telangana

Bandari Anjaiah @ Chakali Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. K. Cornelius, Vs The State of Telangana