Disposed

T. Lakshmidevamma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jun 2025WP/4271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, claiming possession of assigned land through gift deeds from the original assignee, challenged demolition of a structure and threatened eviction without notice. The court held interference without following the procedure under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 was illegal and directed respondents not to interfere without due process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with suit schedule property without following due process of law; liberty to initiate proceedings under the Assigned Lands Act after notice; no costs.

T. Lakshmidevamma, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰² ]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:4271 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. Lakshmidevamma, W/o. Beemanna Goud, Aged 75^years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Pullur (Village), Undavalli^(Mandal) Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶10

M. Shyamala, W/o. Janardhan Goud, Aged 48^years, Occ. House^hold PJo. Flat No.202, Raycon Residency Pipeline Road, Madinaguda Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

K. Nirmala, W/o. K. Kumar, Aged 46^years, Occ: Household R/o. Hat No.219, Pharas Global Kuteer Apartments Raja Rajeshwari Nagar Opp. Global Village Tech Park Mysore Road, Bangalore.

¶12

P. Sunitha, W/o. Chandrasekhar Goud, Aged 44^years, Occ: Household F|/o. H.No.1 0-421 1/A, New Gaddiannaram Colony Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary^(Revenue) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector Jogulamba Gadwal, District.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer Gadwal., Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶18

The Tahsildar Vundavalli Mandal Jogulamba, Gadwal District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue a- writ, order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with^{peaceful possession of} petitioners over land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts situated in Sy.No-250/E2 of Pullur Village, Alampur Taluq, Mahabubnagar District without^{following due processof} Law as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary^to Law and violative^{of Article 14 and 21 of}

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SARATII}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No4271 of 2OL7}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learnt:d^{counsel for the petitionersarr I learned} Assistar-rt Goverrlment^{PleaderforRevenue orthe} respondents and^{perused the entire material on r( (rr)rd}

¶27

Learned counsel for^{the petitioners submit" i.rat they} are the o\rners and^{possessors of the land to arr cxtent of} Acs.5.OO guntas in^{Sy'No.25O/C situated in Pullrrr Vi1lage,} Alampur Talucl.^{Originally,the said land was :'rrruted in} favour of one^{Edigi Timmaiahon payment of Rr ''50/- in} 15 equal installmcnts^{and subsequentto th<' )ayment} made by him, the^{pattarvas sanctioned in hi 'lame in} respect of suit^{scheduleproperty. The said Edigi I mmaiah} has no brothers^{and clo not have any children, a'- such, the} Edigi Timmaiah^{executedtr'vo gift deeds in fa" rrtr of the} petitioner No.1 Smt.Lakshmidevamma^{treatingrt r as his} successor. Basing^{on the said gift deeds, tl e revenue} authorities entered^{the name of the petitionerllo.1 uide} proceedings No.MROR/26 11996,^{dated 30.07.1': 96, in the}

¶28

¶29

SK, J wP 427 I 2017

¶30

revenue records. Thereafter, the said land was divided between the petitioner No.1 and her children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and the same were entered in the revenue records. While it being so, the respondent-authorities without following any procedure and without issuing any notice, illegally demolished the room situated in the suit schedule property which was in existence for the purpose of storing agricultural tools and threatened the petitioners to evict the suit schedule property. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrarSr and requested to allow the writ petition directing the respondents not to enter into the land of the petitioners, without following due process of law.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents basing on counter-affidavit submits that the suit schedule property was assigned to the said Edigi Timmaiah on 3O.O7.1996 and as per the conditions of the assignment, the said Timmaiah has no right to execute gift deed in favour of petitioner No.1 as the petitioners are strangers to

¶32

SK, J wP^.,1''1 2017

¶33

the original assignee.^{The proceedingsissued i-avour of} petitioner No.l uide dated^{30.06'1996 inpli c': ofthe} original assignee^{cannot confer any right or titl -: over the} assigned land and^{the same is in contraVentior o[ terms} and conditions of the^{assignment patta' llrepatta} certificate isstred^{in favour of petitionerNo' 1 i r void and} same cannot confer^{any right or title over the scheduled} land assigned to the^{agricultural purposeand 1'Lc same is} nou, being cotrverted^{into house sites andcoml. l( rcial use} by raising iilegai^{constructions by anti social} ';lements' The respondents^{issued notice to the saidTir. I r naiah on} t8.Ol.2Ol7 , to submit^{explanationn'ithinsever Cays and} order of resumption^{was passedon 03 '02} '20^{'7 and the} said resumption^{order was affixed in the assilredland'} After resumpl.ion^{of the subject land on 04'O2''3 t7, illegal} constructions ln'hich^{are raised in the subject.l and were} demolished and the land^{has beentaken into ( cvernment} custody. In view of the^{said resumption61ds;;' passedby} the respondents, the^{present writ petition h a'; become} infructuous ard is filed^{by the petitioners only tr' grab the} Government tand. As such, the^{present writ} 1r^:litionfiled

¶34

¶35

SK, J wP 427 | _2017

¶36

by the petitioners 1S totally untenabie and requested to dismissed the writ petition

¶37

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considercd view that the respondents without following due process of lau, are interfering with the property of the petitioners, in spite of the petitioners narnes were entered in the revenue record. There is no dispute with regard to the suit scheduie property assigned to one Edigi Timmaiah, after his dcmise, the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property as they are the legal heirs of the said Edigi Timmaiah. The responcients have contended that the petitioners are not entitled to be in the suit schedule property basing on the muta'Lion proceedings and the said proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and they have resumed the land on O4.Q2.2O17 by issuing resumption proceeCings which is annexed in their counter-affidavit. Without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the respondents cannot interfere into the scheduled lald as the petitioners are recorded as pattedars

¶38

¶39

SK. J wP^{,i ),} 1 2017

¶40

{ l.

¶41

. ",',:

¶42

and the said action^{is contraryto the provisi'I1s of the} Telangana Assigned^{I-ands (Prohibitionof Trar-' ;f :rs) Act,} lg77 . lf the^{rt:spondents want to evict the petitir I ers from} the suit sch,:dule^{property, tl-rey have too lor'r' the} procedure by issuing^{notice to the petitionersz nd after} obtaining ne(essarv^{explanation from them aed pass} appropriate orclers.^{In the instant case,the rr :i )ondents} u,ithor-rt follov'ing the^{procedureas contemplatC inthe} Telangana Assigned^{l-ands (Prohibitionof Trzrr s ers) Act,} 1977, are intt:rfering^{into the possessionof the 1r rtitioners} and the said action^{of the respondentsisll:gal and} arbltr.1ry.

¶43

In vieu, of the above^{finding, the u'rit} p:tition ts disposed of directing^{the respondents not to ir} e rfere into the sr-rit scheciule^{propertyri'ithoutfollowing du} process of law and this order^does not^{precludethe resl} o rdents to initiate procecclings against the^petitioners under the provisions of the Telangana Assigned^Lands(Pt rl ribition of Transfers) Act, 1977, alter issuing^notices.Th r,: shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

¶45

u'-:. r) SK, J wP_4271_2017

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶47

petition shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- AHM D ABDULLA KHAN TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary (Revenue) Department Secretariat, T State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶53

The District Collector Jogulamba Gadwal, District.

¶54

The Revenue Divisional Officer Gadwal., Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶55

The Tahsildar Vundavalli Mandal Jogulamba, Gadwal District.

¶56

One CC to Sri Harender Prasad, Advocate IOPUC]

¶57

i 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana,^at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶58

Two CD Copies

TJ GJ o

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810612025

ORDER

WP.No.4271 of 2017

1.1 ,
I 13 :lt:r au[
i.: Iii
1,, ,.+ ,,,
,r
O,r-. ,
t)t'

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

\ 01I {

T. Lakshmidevamma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Lakshmidevamma, v. The State of Telangana

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

Edward Rozario Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Bijjaram Srilatha Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Jayesh.C. Adhia Vs The State of Telangana

B Ilaiah, Warangal Urban Dist Vs Prl Secy, Dept. of Revenue, Hyderabad and 4 Others

M. Bikshapathi, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Chittimalle Omprakash Vs The State of Telangana