1. W.P.No.15008 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in attempting to dispossess and taking over of the land in Sy.No.311/6 to an extent of Acres 1.20 gts situated at Mupkal Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Assignment of Land Act, Land Acquisition Act, Articles 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess and take over the land of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law, in the interest of Justice and pass...”
2. W.P.No.13080 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in attempting to dispossess and taking over of the land in Sy. No. 311/6 to an extent of Acres 1.00 situated at Mupkal Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Assignment of Land Act, Land Acquisition Act, Articles 14 and 300- A of constitution of India and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess and take over the land of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law, in the interest of Justice...”
3. W.P.No.13675 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in attempting to dispossess and taking over of the land in Sy. No. 311/5 to an extent of Acres 2.09 gts situated at Mupkal Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary. illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Assignment of Land Act, Land Acquisition Act, Articles 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess and take over the land of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law in the interest of Justice and pass...”
4. W.P.No.40925 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in attempting to dispossess and taking over of the land in Sy. No. 311/6 to an extent of Acres 1.00 gts situated at Mupkal Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Assignment of Land Act, Land Acquisition Act, Articles 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess and take over the land of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law, in the interest of Justice..”
5. The subject matter is common in all these writ petitions, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. Facts in W.P.No.15008 of 2016 are being referred.
6. Heard Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are pattedars and in possession and enjoyment of agricultural land in Sy.No.311/6 to an extent of Acs.1.20 guntas situated at Mupkal Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. That respondent No.4 – The Tahsildar, Nizamabad District, assigned the subject land to petitioners’ father-in-law (Kusthapuram Bhumaiah) on the ground that he was a land less poor person, vide proceedings in DIS No.B3/11136/73 dated 12.12.1973. A copy of the assignment issued by the Tahsildar, Armoor, is annexed as Ex.P1 (Page No.9) to writ papers.
8. Contention is that after the death of Kusthapuram Bhumaiah, his two sons (namely J.K. Hanmallu and J.K. Narsaiah), were cultivating the subject land (through inheritance). That petitioner No.1 is the wife of J.K. Hanmallu and that petitioner No.1 is cultivating the land along with her co-sister-in-law i.e., petitioner No.2 herein and their names were mutated in revenue records.
9. It is submitted that respondent No.4 issued a notice, dated 29.12.2015, for taking possession of the subject land for the construction of double bedroom houses. The said notice is annexed as Ex.P2 (Page No.11) to writ papers.
10. It is further submitted that when the land is assigned in the year 1973, to petitioners’ father-in-law, it was rocky and uncultivable. That in the past 43 years, efforts were made to bring the subject land as cultivable for the purpose of agriculture. That they also dug 5 bore-wells for cultivation of paddy crops.
11. It is the case of petitioners that respondents are trying to take over the possession of the subject lands ignoring the availability of the government lands.
12. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are land less poor people and they are covered under the definition of land less poor people under Section 2 (3) of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. That the respondents’ acts of trying to take possession over the subject land is illegal and arbitrary and that trying to dispossess petitioners from the subject land would be prejudicial to the interest of the family.
13. It is submitted that a representation dated 29.12.2015 was submitted by the affected persons to the Office of the Tahsildar. The particulars of the victims and pattadars are shown in the statement annexed at Page No.15 of writ papers.
14. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that if the land is required for the purpose of construction of two bedroom houses, respondent authorities can acquire the land in the interest of public at large.
15. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.13696 and 13686 of 2016 and also relied upon the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13691 of 2016.
16. It is trite to extract the prayer in the writ petition relied upon by the petitioner counsel, i.e., W.P.No.13691 of 2016. The prayer is as follows:
“to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in attempting to dispossess and taking over of the land in Sy. No. 311/6 to an extent of Acres 1.19 gts situated at Mupkal Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Assignment of Land Act, Land Acquisition Act, Articles 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent not to dispossess and take over the land of the Petitioner without notice and without following due process of law, in the interest of Justice.”
17. On a perusal of the prayer in W.P.No.13691 of 2016 relied upon and also in the other two writ petitions, it is observed that survey number in all the three writ petitions relied upon by the counsel and the survey number in the present writ petition are one and the same.
18. A learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 25.06.2025 in W.P.No.13691 of 2016 held as follows:
“Recording the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to follow due process as contemplated under law before initiating action on the subject property.”
19. Having perused the material on record and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.13691, 13696 and 13686 of 2016, this Court is of the considered opinion that similar orders can be passed in the present writ petition. This Court is not inclined to take a different view from the view expressed by the learned Single Judge’s of this Court. It was held that the authorities should follow the due process of law before initiating any action in respect of the subject property therein.
20. This Court also directs respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and follow the due process, if the subject land of petitioners is required in the interest of public at large.
21. This order being common in nature for all the writ petitions (i.e., four writ petitions) is applicable to all the petitioners who are before this Court. Respondent authorities are directed to follow the due process of law before initiating steps for taking possession of the subject properties of the writ petitioners in all these writ petitions for the public purpose.
22. For reasons aforesaid, W.P.Nos.15008, 13080, 13675 and 40925 of 2016 stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
