Telangana High Court
Smt.R.Vijay Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its … on 16 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.5287 OF 2016
DATE: 16.04.2026
Between :
Smt. R. Vijay Laxmi and four others.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and four others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
“…To issue an order or direction or writ more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of Respondents in
encroaching and dispossessing the petitioners
from the land in Sy No.463 to an extent of Ac 2.00
Gts. out of Ac.13.12 Gts. situated at Palle Bugurj
Village of Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar
District as illegal, arbitrary, violates the
fundamental right of petitioners guaranteed U/A
14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and
2consequently direct the respondents not to
dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy No.
463 to an extent of Ac 2.00 Gts. out of Ac.13.12
Gts. situated at Palle Bugurj Village of Narayanpet
Mandal and Town Mahabubnagar District……”
2.1. The brief facts, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that their
family originally owned and possessed land admeasuring Ac.13.12
guntas in Survey No.463, situated at Palle Bugurj Village, Narayanpet
Mandal and Town, Mahabubnagar District. The said property was
inherited from their father, late Sri Gattu Gajalappa. Subsequently, the
property was partitioned among the legal heirs, and in the year 2010,
certain extents were transferred in favour of various family members
and third parties through duly registered gift deeds. Pursuant thereto,
the respective transferees have been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of their respective portions. The revenue records, including
khasra pahani, pattadar passbooks, and title deeds, consistently reflect
the names of the petitioners and their family members as lawful owners
and possessors of the subject land.
2.2. While matters stood thus, when the petitioners undertook
construction activities over their respective extents, Respondent No.3,
namely the District Fire Officer, obstructed such activities and allegedly
attempted to excavate the land using machinery and to enclose an
3
extent of Ac.2.00 guntas by constructing a compound wall, claiming
that the said land had been allotted to him by the authorities.
2.3. The petitioners categorically assert that the subject land is
private patta land and that the respondents have no manner of right,
title, or lawful authority to interfere with or encroach upon the same. It
is further stated that proceedings relating to the subject land are under
challenge, and an appeal is presently pending before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Narayanpet.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land
admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.463 forms an integral part of
their private patta land, duly owned and possessed by them and their
family members. Their title and possession are substantiated by valid
revenue records and registered conveyances, which carry presumptive
evidentiary value under settled principles of revenue jurisprudence.
3.2. It is submitted that the respondents have no semblance of right,
title, or authority over the subject land. The actions of the respondents
in attempting to excavate and forcibly occupy the land without issuing
prior notice or initiating proceedings in accordance with law are
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
4
3.3. Such high handed conduct constitutes unlawful interference with
the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property. It
is specifically pleaded that the impugned actions infringe the
fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
3.4. The petitioners further emphasize that the right to property,
though no longer a fundamental right, remains a valuable constitutional
right under Article 300-A, and deprivation thereof can only be effected
by authority of law. Reliance may be placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was held that any deprivation of
property must be just, fair, and reasonable.
3.5. It is also contended that even assuming the land is required for
a public purpose, the State is bound to acquire the same strictly in
accordance with the procedure established under law, particularly
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and cannot
resort to forcible dispossession. Accordingly, the petitioners seek
issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the actions of the
respondents as illegal and for a consequential direction restraining
5
them from interfering with the petitioners’ possession except by due
process of law.
4.1. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue
contends that the writ petition is misconceived, untenable, and liable to
be dismissed in limine. It is argued that the petition suffers from delay
and laches and is therefore not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P., (2011) 15 SCC 383,
wherein it was held that belated claims relating to dispossession or
acquisition, particularly after a long lapse of time, are liable to be
rejected as stale claims, as the State would be prejudiced in defending
such matters. It is further contended that the subject land has been
earmarked and utilized for public purposes. Once land is voluntarily
relinquished or otherwise made available for public use, the same
vests in the State, extinguishing the rights of the original owners.
4.3. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division
Bench in Dr. Gurram Lakshminarasimha Reddy v. State of Telangana
(2025 Supreme (Telangana) 2093), wherein it was held that land
dedicated to public purposes cannot be reconveyed to private
6
individuals, and the doctrine of public trust applies. It is further
submitted that continued use of land for public purposes creates
enforceable community rights, particularly under Articles 21 and 21-A
of the Constitution. Even non utilization of a portion of land due to
administrative constraints does not confer any right on the petitioners
to reclaim or obstruct its use. Thus, the respondents contend that their
actions are lawful, justified, and in furtherance of public interest.
5. Upon perusal of the material on record and consideration of the
rival submissions, the core issue that arises for determination is
whether the respondents’ action in interfering with the petitioners’
possession is lawful and in accordance with due process.
6. The petitioners have placed reliance on revenue records and
registered instruments, which carry presumptive value regarding
possession. In contrast, the respondents assert that the land was
allotted for construction of a fire station pursuant to a municipal
resolution and administrative instructions.
7. However, significantly, no documentary evidence has been
produced by the respondents to establish vesting, or transfer of title in
favour of the State or lawful acquisition. There is no material
evidencing voluntary relinquishment or statutory acquisition.
7
8. In the absence of such proof, unilateral action by the authorities
to dispossess the petitioners is clearly inconsistent with Article 300-A of
the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of
property save by authority of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126, and Rame Gowda v. M.
Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, has consistently held that even a
trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by
due process of law. A fortiori, a lawful owner cannot be dispossessed
arbitrarily.
9. The reliance placed by the respondents on Syed Maqbool Ali
(supra) is distinguishable, as the present case does not involve
inordinate delay but arises from recent interference. Similarly, the
doctrine of public trust would apply only where land has validly vested
in the State, which is not established in the present case. Nevertheless,
it is well settled that if the State genuinely requires land for a public
purpose, it is open to it to acquire the same strictly in accordance with
law.
10. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the action of the respondents in dispossessing the
petitioners without establishing lawful title or following due process is
arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable. Such action violates Article 300-A,
8
and offends the guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the impugned
action of the respondents as illegal. The respondents are restrained
from interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the subject land
except by following due process of law. However, liberty is reserved to
the respondents to initiate appropriate acquisition proceedings, if so
required, strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 16.04.2026
MRKR
9
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.5287 OF 2016
16.04.2026
MRKR