Allowed¶64

Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/9176/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 set aside for want of prior notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and violation of natural justice; Government land versus private patta land; pahani records 1958-59 to 2013-14 showing private property; pattadar passbook and title deed cancellation proposals pending; Sy.No.727/31/A, Ac.3-10 guntas, Palvancha, Bhadradri Kottagudem; earlier order in W.P. No. 1175 of 2016 applied; writ of mandamus under Article 226; Telangana High Court, W.P. No. 9176 of 2017, K. Sarath J., decided 13.08.2025; petition allowed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned notice in Rc.No.B/1742/2013 dated 09.03.2017 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition stand closed.

Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice in Rc.No.B/1742/2013 dated 09.03.2017 issued by respondent No.3 under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905, without reference to the earlier Section 7 Land Encroachment Act notice and the petitioner's reply, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The impugned notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 made no reference to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 05.09.2013 or to the petitioner's reply dated 12.09.2013, and was issued straightaway without there being any procedure, directing eviction within seven days.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The findings in the order in W.P.No.1175 of 2016 (where a notice/order under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 was issued without a prior notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and was set aside) apply to the instant case, as the impugned notice here was likewise issued under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905.

¶59

Key takeaways

The pahani records for the years 1958-59, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2013-14 produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader show that the subject property is the private property of the petitioner; accordingly the respondents issued the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 without any authority and it is liable to be set aside.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Sarath, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 filed by Sammidi Janardhan Reddy challenging a notice in Rc.No.B/1742/2013 dated 09.03.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Palvancha under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 directing him to vacate Ac.3-10 gts in Sy.No.727/31/A, Palvancha Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kottagudem District. The Tahsildar had earlier issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 05.09.2013 and received the petitioner's reply dated 12.09.2013 (claiming pattadar passbook and title deed issued to his father, with cancellation proposals pending), but the impugned Section 6 notice made no reference to either and was issued straightaway without procedure. Pahani records for 1958-59, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2013-14 showed the subject property to be the petitioner's private property. Applying the order in W.P.No.1175 of 2016, the Court held the notice was issued without authority, set it aside, allowed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

,./,

¶2

[³³⁰² ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH'DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9176 OF 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, S/o: Late. S. Venkata Reddy, aged 51 years, Occupation: Cultivation, R/o. H.No.30-1-57, Vengala Rao Colony, New Palvancha, Palvancha Muncipality, Bhadradri Kottagudem District - 507 115.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana., represented by lts Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana State Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kottagudem District

¶15

3 The Tahsildar, Palvancha, Palvancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kottagudem Drstrict

¶16

Arudra Satyanarayana, S/o. ltr'lalla Chary, Aged about 46 yearS, Occ. Social Worker, Rl/o. Vengalrao Colony, Palvancha Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District,

¶17

Respondent No.4 is impleaded as per C.O.dt. 10.07.2024 in lA No. 1t2018.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the Notice issued by the 3'd respondent vide^proceedings Rc.No.B/1 74212013, daled 0910312017 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of^principles of natural^justice and consequently set aside the said proceedings.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO:113Q^{0 0F 2017)}

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{r r:umstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed n support of the^{petition, the High Cc rr may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the^{Notice issuedby the I rd respondentvide} proceedings Rc.No B/1 742120'1 3, dated 0910312017 in^{r?spect of the land} admeasuring Ac.3.10^guntas in Sy.No.^{727l31/A situaterl :rt Palvancha Village'} Palvancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kottagudem^{District, Pendrrg disposal of the writ} petition

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 3340 OF 20171

¶23

Between

¶24

The State of Telangana., represented by^{lts Principal! e:retary,Revenue} Department, Telangana State Secretariat at Hyderabz|^J

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem,^{Bhadrac ri Kottagudem District}

¶26

The Tahsildar, Palvancha, Palvancha^{trrlandal, Bhadrzrir KottagudemDistrict.} ... p( titioners/respondents

¶27

and

¶28

Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, S/o Late. S.^{Venkata tleddy, aged 51 years,} Occupation Cultivation, R'/o.H.No. 30-1-57,^{Vengrla RaoColony, New} Palvancha, Palvancha lr,4uncipality, Bhadradri^{Kottagucen District - 507 115.}

¶29

...RESP(}IIDENTSPETITIONER

¶30

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC^praying that in the^{. ir} )umstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Courtrr:ry be pleased vacate} the interim orders dt. 15.03.2017^{passed in W.P.No.9176 o' :1017 and dismiss the} writ petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN^KUMAIl

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT. S. SRAVANfI{|, AGP FOR REVEI\UE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

sK,,l W I,.No.9I76 ot20l7

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.9 L76 of 20t7

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This rvrit petition is liled qucst.ioning the notice issued by the respondenr No.3 in Rc.No.B/ L742/2013 dated 09.03.2012 as illcgal zrncl arbitrary ard to sct aside thc said ncltice.

¶40

Heard Sri Kowturu pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionrrr. and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistan t (iovcrnr_ncn1 plcadcr for Revenue. None appears lor the unolficrai respondent No.4.

¶41

Lcarned Counsel lor th<: petitioner submits that the farhcr of petitioncr lalc Sri Sammidi Venkata Reddy was acquired thc land admeasuring to an extent of Ac'3- 10 gts in sy.No.727 /31/A situated at Palvoncha Villagc and Mandal, tshadradri_Kothagudem District about 4O ycar.s back ancl since then, he was cultivating the said lancl irnd the then erstwhile

¶42

¶43

2 SK, J i ,⁽⁾ l7t)^{oi 2017}

¶44

¶45

Government^{of Andhra Prad'esh was issue: pattadar} passbook^{ancl title deed vide patta No 38O irr lavour of} the^{father of petiti'onerand afte r his cllr-rise 'the} petitioner^{is i,possession and enjoyment rl the said} land.^{Whik: so' the respondent No'2 withotrt affording} opportunity^{underSection 7 of rlrcLand} Encroachment^{Act' 1905 has issued th''impugned} notice^{under Section6 of the Madras Ac lilof 1905} Rc'No'B'^{1742 l2ol3} vide proceedings dated^{09 0 3 2017 directingthe petition- iLo vacate} from^{the land within seven days from t -lc dateof} He further^{sulrr-iitsthat in} receiPt^{of the said nottce} this^{CourtPas-t:Iorder rn} similar^{circumstances'} W.P.No'1175^{of 20i6 dated 24'06'2024ztnC requested} to^{pass similar order in the presentwrit p' -tition'}

¶46

On ti-re^{otherhand' learned Assistatrl(i<lvernment} Pleader^{lt>r Revenue} '^{based on the cotrrrter submits} that^{as pcr the records' the land in Sy'Nr'' /27 is purely} classi,fied^{as Government land and subs-:'1uentlyto^"}

¶47

¶48

w.P.N".er76.r;5it

¶49

part of land was assrgned in favour of BpL families in the year l9S0 by the Special Social Welfare Officer, Yellandu and some part of land was alienated for con struction of Kothagudem Therma,l Power Station, Palvancha and aiso for KTpS colony in the year, 1968 artd in addition to that the subject land was kept vacant for public purpose lor future needs. She submits that as the petitioner has encroached upon the subject land, the then Tahsildar, pa_lvalcha has rssued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 19OS in Rc.No.B/ 1742/2013 dated 05.0g.20 13 to the petitioner, who in turn has submitted his explanation on 12.O9.2O13 stating thar pattadar passbook and titlc deed were issued to his father late Sammidi Venkata Reddy for the lard admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1_2O gts in Sy.No.727 and Ac.r-30 gts in sy.No.727/31/Aand the total rand IS Ac.3- 1O gts She further submits that after verification of thc records, it was found that the

¶50

4 S(,.I V P \o^{S 176 ol20L7}

¶51

obtained^{pattadar passbc'rksand title} petitione^rhas deeds^without following^{clue procedure 'r-rd as such} cancellation^{proposalsof said pattadar p rrr;sbooks and} the highr:r^authorities title deecls^{were submittedto} cancellat ')l^{) at District} ald^{the same is Pending for} Level^{ancl requestedto dismiss the u'r itPetttton} AS there^{are: no grounds to pass orders in te present writ} petitton

¶52

After^{hearing both sides and 1--r:rusalofthe} record,^{this Court is of the considerer.l,iiew that the} petitioner^{hasinheri.tedthe land adrrL'itsuringto an} 1n Sy.No.727 131 /A^situatedat extent^{oi Ac'3-10gts} Palvancha^{Viilage and Mandal'Bhadrarlri-Kothagudem} District^{from his father late Sammidi v':nkata Reddy} The irnPugned^{noticewasissued bY tre resPondent} No.3 uncler^{Section 6 of the Madras ltcIII of 1905 in} Rc.No.B/¹⁷⁴² l2Ol3^{dated 09'03 '2Ol' lor eviction of} the petitioner^{from the subject land liithin seven days} from the^{date of ser-viceof the nottce'ln the imPugned}

¶53

¶54

, ,".rr rU .r!5ij

¶55

notice, there is no reference with regard to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 190S dated 0S.09.2013 and also the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 12.09.2013 artd without there being any procedure, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice straightaway under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 19OS directing the pedtioner to evict from the subject propertJz within seven days from the clate of service of the said notice. 6. Moreover, learr:ed counsel for the pefitioner has drawn the attention of this Court in W.p.No. lI75 of 2016 dated 24.06.2( The .perative portion of the said order in para *o"o' .6 is as lollows;

¶56

.6. In Madanapalle t3 High court ,.,. . a),lltll'.-'"t'-. relerred 5Lrpr-2, the combined I{vderabad n",o ,ir, ,;.",r.: ^:' 'lelangana and Andhra pradesh at the Madras issue(l u,de r section 7 ot rhe Act 3 of and the strt" or ^.,,^{,;;r.;;;;rrcc} -' --t applrcabie to rhe state ofAndhra pradesh Lan6 Encroachrnent ,,.,;.. ,';;:'':^ .Pra<'sh^is having sel .1905,^{*,hichcame into ro,onol'"'""0".n r."o'J".sParate} rmpusned notice. l. ,n" .i from 23121so- ;;:::Hj T: hanci, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings una". rurua.r";,'"t " application .f. In,"o..'u1". I and passc(l Lhe irnpugncd order without e, tl.re Doticc dated 0.5.O 1.2016 and

¶57

(-; SK,.J \I I 'rr (r lTlr ol2O I7

¶58

consequential^{order date(l07 01 2016 passe<lby responclct} No.'1^are liable^{to bc sctirsrcte}

¶59

The^{abovesaid findir-rgs also apply to I I'l instant} case as^{theimpugned notice was issttc'l under} Section^{6 of the MadrasAct Ill of 1905'}

¶60

denr^{No 3, the} the counter^{of the respon} 7. As Per notⁱ⁽ c^under have^{initiallYissued} re spon^dents ()05 to the Section^{7 of the Land Encroachment Act'} 05.09.20^{13 and the Petttron':has aiso} pr:titioner^ot-t submitted^{his exPianatlon on12.09.2023lut in the} impugned^{notlce, [here is no reference wr l'rcgardto} thesaidtroticeandreply.Moreover,attnctimeof arguments'^{this Court has directed the rt r;p<lt-rdentsto} produce^{the record' Today' when the milltcr is taken} up for^{hearing, learned Assistant Goverr I cnt Pleader} for Revenue^{has submittedwritten instr' rt t ions of the} that^the 12.08.2025^{st'r.t 1g} resPondent^{No'3 dated} of^the under^occuPlrtL<ln scheduled ProPerty^is petitioner^{and no land acquisitlon orzr,i,:nation took}

¶61

¶62

S(, .I w.t, No 9I76 of 2017

¶63

place over the said land. As per the documents produced by the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue with regard to the pahalies for the years 1958-59, 2OO3-O4, 2005_06, 20t3_14 clearty shows that the subject property is a private property of the petitioner. In view of the same, the respondents without any authority have issuecl the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶64

Accordingly, the Writ petition IS allowed by setting aside the inrpugned notice in Rc.No.B/1742/2013 dated 09.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.3. No order as to costs

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions, if ar-ry pending in this writ petition, shalt stand closecl.

¶66

SD/- U. SUDHA TANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶67

ECTION OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

1 Th The Principal Secretarv. RevenLls Department, Telangana State Secretariat at e State of Telanganl., HyderaOaO.

¶70

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kottagudem District 3 The Tahsildar,^patvancha, palvancha Mandat, Bhadradri plJSgudem District

¶71