Disposed

G. Gopal, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.

Telangana HC1 Aug 2025WP/38010/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged respondents sought to demolish their compound wall and dispossess them from Ac.3-25 guntas in Sy.No.191 without notice or due process. Respondents stated they were protecting Government land only in Sy.No.199 and not interfering with Sy.No.191. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing authorities not to interfere with Sy.No.191 without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioners' land in Sy.No.191 without following due process of law; no costs; WP dismissed against respondent No.4 for non-compliance.

G. Gopal, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38010 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Gopal, S/o. Sri G. Pentaiah, aged about 50^{years Occ- Business.Rl/o.} H.No. 1-3-25i43, B.J.Rs Colony, Jammigadda,^Kapra Keesara^{lt/andal,Ranga} Reddy District

¶9

Smt- K. Ramulamma, W/o. Laxminarayana, aged about^{55 years Occ.House} wife, PJo. 1-29-8181, B.J.Rs Colony, Jammigadda, Kapra^{KeesaraMandal,} Ranga Reddy District

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by^{its Prl., SecretaryRevenue} Secretariat, Hyderabad,

¶13

) The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakidikapool,^Hyderabad

¶14

3 The Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District

¶15

4 Singireddy Krishna Reddy, S/o. late Singireddy^Swamy.aged -about^65_years OcC Agriculture. R/o. Kushaiguda, Kapra^{Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga} Reddy District.

¶16

Since the conditional order of the court dt.^{16.04.2015has not been} comptied with the default clause of the said^{orderhas been given effect} to, dnd the WP accordingly stands dismissed^{as againstrespondent} No.4.

¶17

.-.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of tVlandamus, questioning the action of^{the respondents1 to 3 in tryingto} demolish the compound wall and also^{dispossess the petitioners from land in} survey no. 191 of Jammigadda,^{Kapra Municrpality, Keesara Mandal,Ranga} Reddy District to an extent of Ac.3.25^gts equivalent^{to admeasuring 1452 sq.}

¶19

¶20

yards within the boundaries East- Owners land, West- iJR Colony'^North- Neighbors Land, South- 60 feet wide road without^{foll,r ving the procedure} prescribed under the Land Encroachment Act 1905 and without issuing^any proceedings without notice is illegal and void and opposec rf Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and consequently to^{direct the respondentsnot} to interfere with the^{peacefulpossession} and enjoyment^r f^{petitionersland in} question without due process of law.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 48205 OF 20121

¶22

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the^r ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cott t may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to demolish the^petitione'r compound wall and not to dispossess the petitioners from land in survey no. 91 of Jammigadda, Kapra Municipality, Keesara tVtandal, Ranga Reddy Dist ict to an extent of Ac.3.25 gts equivalent to admeasuring 1452 sq.^{yards ,r} thin the boundaries East: Owners land, West: BJR Colony, North: Neighbors and, South: 60 feet wide road, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA ll \O

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent no.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUT

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER ft,.

¶26

:.]

¶27

IIONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶28

WRIT PETITION^{No.38O1O of2OL2}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This u,rit^{petition is hled seekingthe following prayer:-}

¶31

"^. ..declaing^{the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in} trying to iemolish^{thecompoundutall andalso} dlpJttt." the^petitioners from^{land in suruegno'191of} Jammigadda Kapra^{MunicipalitgKeesaraMandalRanga} Reddy District to^{an extentof Ac.3-25 qts equiualent to} admeasuing 1452^{sq.gards tuithinthe boundaiesEast} Ou.mers taid,^{West BJR Colong NorthNeighbors Land} South 6O feet^{wid.e road uitLaut} follouting^{the procedure} prescnbei under^{the Land Dncroachment Act 1905 and} -tuithout issuing ang proceedings rtLithout notice is illegaL anrl uoid ""aLpposea^{of Article 14, 19, 21 and 3O0A of} constitution of^{india and consequentlgto directthe} respondents not^{to interfereuith the peaceful possession} anrl enjogment^{of petitioners land in question withoutclue} process of laul..."

¶32

The facts of the^{case in brief as stated are that the lernd} in Sy.No.191 admeasuring^{Ac.14-15 gts', Keesara Mandal'} Ranga Reddy District^{belongs to father of respondentNo 4'} n,hiclrisanancestralproperty'Thereafter,onl5'12'2006't]]rLe petitioners purchased^{a portion of Iand admeasuringAc 3- l5} gts., out of total^{extent of land and constructedthe compound} u,all, accordingly,^{the same was informed to thc Revenue} Authorities. lt is^{submitted that on04'12'2012'the} respondent authorities^{and their staff visited the petitioners}

¶33

¶34

land outside the compound wall and state<l that the whole localitl, is a Government land and that tlr '-v are going to demoiish the compound wall. Questioning the same, the present writ pctition is filed

¶35

¶36

This Court on 14.12.2012 passed the lrllowing interim order

¶37

" While the petitioners utould conte td that the respondents are seeking to euict thenL from their priuct.te patta lands o{ Ac.3-25 guntas in : 1.No.191 of Jamniqadda, Kapra Nlun.icipalitg, Kees:,a Mandal, Lerned C). P. .for Reuenue (Telanganc'. area), orl instructior-ts, tuould submit that uhite tt e extent of Ac.3 25 guntas in Sg.No.l91 is pnuate catta land, the pelitioners were preuented uh.en tl eg tied to encroach upon the Gouentrnent land in ,> 1.No.199 to an exlent of 0-2O guntas uhich has bee t allotted for constructiort of a Primarg Health Center.

¶38

Since the petitioners deng hauing ?ncroach.ed on the Gouernrnent land rn Sy.I[o. 199, at d it is their grieuance that the respondents u.tere seeking to interfere utith their possession ouer Ac.3-i 5 guntas in Sg.No.191 . stcttus quo as on today uith , egards tltis extett of Ac.3-25 guntas in Sg. Yo.191 of Jam n'iigaclcla, Kapra ll[unicipality, Keesc ra Mandal, shall. be ntaintctined uLntil futlher orders.'^------- . -- -

¶39

¶40

rl I

¶41

A counter afhdavit has been filed by respondent No.3 stating that petitione r might have purchased the portion of subject land from respondent No.4 which is belonging to the Government allotted for construction of Primary Health Centre and that respondent authorities are not interfering r,r,ith the patta lands ln Sy.No.l91 and was protecting ttre land in Sy.No.199 from encroachers and that they have never visited the petitioners land to demolish the compound wall. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, thc petitioners land is in Sy.No.19i and the Government land is ir-r Sy.No. 199 and that thev are having no concern lvith the larld IN Sy.No-191 and respondent authorities cannot take an1' action $'ithoLrt follorving clue procedure as contemplated under las'

¶42

In that view' of the matter, since the respondent authorities have stated that their land is in Sy.No.199 and^the petitioners land is in Sy.No.191, this writ petition is disposed ol rvith a dir-ection to respondent authorities not to^intcrlere u,ith the pctitioners land in Sy.No.191 without following^duc process of lau .

I !

I I

Accordingly, with the above directions tlr s writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if ar y pending, sha1l

¶47

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR 1 ( /? -=-

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

¶52

The Prl-, Secretary Revenue Secretariat, Hydera rad, Government of Telangana.

¶53

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakidikapo, l, Hyderabad

¶54

The Tahsildar, Keesara [,4andal, Ranga Reddy Distrir;t

¶55

One CC to SRI MUIUTMANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advcr ate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for th€ State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

i Ii :t'$

¶58

Two CD Copies

BSR

TKS

I str-

E i, li. ! !lli

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110812025

ORDER

WP.No.38010 of 2012

ih:<br><br>o <br>(-)
2 t JAI 2!26
I
* Or:.. -
i'!
-:.--- --.2

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶73

WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

SY
A/6'
\ 5.o<br>

G. Gopal, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Gopal, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Shrutika Kankani Vs Union of India

Sri B. Ch. Venkanna, Hyderabad. Vs the Dir.Genl.of Works,Cpwd., New Delhi, and 2 Otrs.

Moola Mahender Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

Sri R.v.K.Varma Vs The State of Telangana, rep by its Prl. Secretary

Sri Kalva Laxmaiah,Rr Dist Vs Govt.of Ap,Scy,Rev,Hyd,and 3

M. Rakesh Babu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation