logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 084 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 6734 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
Parties : Bochu Rajeev Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mekala Goutham Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 03-03-2026
Head Note :-
Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 7 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Land Encroachment Act, 1905
- Section 7

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged a show‑cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 concerning two parcels of land in Incherla Village. The respondent argued the petition was non‑maintainable as the notice was merely procedural and the petitioner’s explanation dated 04‑09‑2025 would be considered. The petitioner contended that interference with possession had begun before any enquiry concluded. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s explanation within four weeks and, pending that consideration, to refrain from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the lands. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the notice vide Rc. No.B/591/2025 dated nil.08.2025 issued by respondent No.4 under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of the property admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.31 and Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.33, situated at Incherla Village, Mulugu Mandal and District.

2. Heard Mr. Mekala Goutham Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents; and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable. The notice impugned in this writ petition is only a show cause notice to which the petitioner submitted explanation dated 04.09.2025 and the same will be duly considered by respondent No.4 in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before enquiry is concluded and orders are passed, the respondent authorities are interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property.

5. In the light of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider the explanation dated 04.09.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice dated nil.08.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is done, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.31 and Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.33, situated at Incherla Village, Mulugu Mandal and District. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal