WP/31205/2026 of Hanumakonda Veeraswamy, Vs State of Telangana, on 18 September 2026

: ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief "...1o issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1"t Respondent in not clisposing the statutory Revision filed on 05.09.2026 along with stay petition under AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation as against the orders passed by the Additional Agent to the Government, Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam in CMA No.10 of 2023 dated 27.07.2026, confirming the orders of Agency Divisional officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in LTR Case No.3/2021- SNGR dafed 21 .01 .2023, without power, jurisdiction and taking fudher steps to conduct panchanama for taking the possession over the /ards is illegal, arbitrary, violates Afticle 19, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 1"t Respondent to dispose the Revision pending before the said authority, without inteiering wfh the possession and enioyment of the lands of the Petitioner, situated in Sy.No.207/1/2, to an extent of Ac.00-24 Gts., Sy.No.467/1 to an extent of Ac.2-05 Gts., and Sy.No.476 to an extent of Ac.7-09 Gts., situated at Gate Karepalle Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, along with the standing crop till the disposal of the Revision and fo pass..."

2. Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Yogesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Z Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos 'l tc 4 Perused the record

3. With the consent of both the parties' this Writ Petition ls disposed of at the stage of admission itself'

Brief facts of the case: 4.1 . The petitioners are the absolute owners €rnd possessors of land admeasurtng Ac.O.24 in Sy.No.207, Ac 2 05 gts rn Sy.No.476, situated at Gate Mandal, Khammam District Sy.No.467 Karepalle and Ac.9.34 gts in Village, Singareni (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject propefy') and they have been in continuous possession and enjoymr:nt of the subject property since the time of their ancestors'

4.2. Based on the representation' dated 0804'2021 submitted by respondent No 5 alleging that certain land transactions had taken place between non-tribals in violation rf the provisions of the Telangana Scheduled Area Land Transfr:r Regulation' 1970 (for short the 'LTR Regulations')' respondent No 2 conducted an enquiry in respect of the subject property ard having found that the petitioners had contravened Section 3(1) of the LTR Regulations, directed respondent No 4 trl take the subject property into Government custody under the cover of panchanama and assign the same to landless poor tribals for agricultural purposes, by removing any person not bound by the decree who may refuse to vacate the property 4.3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which was dismissed. euestioning the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Tribal Welfare Department, which is pending consideration. As the revision has not been taken up, the petitioners filed the instant wrrt petition apprehending their dispossession from the subject property.

5.

Submissions

made bv the learned cou nsel for the petitioners: 5.1 . The petitioners and their ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for more than 60 years. The LTR came into force in the State of Telangana with effect from 03.02.1970 and no transaction in respect of the subject property has taken place subsequent thereto. The subject property is a purely private land belonglng to different vendors who are all non-tribals

5.2. Based on mere assumptions and presumptions ' respondent Nos 2 and 3 have passed the orders reiecting the claim of the petitioners' causing grave prejudice to th':m 5.3. Under the LTR Regulations' orders of eviction passed by the competent authorities can be implemented only by following the due process of law' including filing an Execution Petition and following the procedure contemplated under C P C ln the present case, without filing any Execution Petition for enforcement of the orders, respondent Nos 2 and 3 could not have directed respondent No 4 to take possession of the subiect property through a Panchanama 5.4 The order for restoration of possession has to be executed like a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil Corlrt ln support of the said contention' learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mamillapalli Chinakoteswara Rao and others v' Mandal l?evenue Officer' Buttagudem Mandal' W'G' District and other:;l ' wherein' it was held that as per Rule 7(4) of the LTR Regulations' the order for restoration of possession passed by the Age'nt or the Agency ' 2oo5 (5) At-D 126

I Divisional Officer or other Officer has to be executed like a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil Court 5.5. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the subject property without following the due process of law.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on instructions, submits that the respondent-authorities have not taken any steps to evict the petitioners from the subject property till date lt is further submitted that if the respondent-authoiities intend to evict the petitioners from the subject property, they will follow the due process of law.

7. ln view of the above submissions, without expresslng any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court' deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the subject property of the petitioners in any manner without following due process of law

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of' No costs

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs sD/- T. SRII{+VASA REDDY ASSI R //TRUE COPY// R To, AGK One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SMT' JUSTICE JUWADA SRIDEVI (For Her LadYshiPs kind Perusal)

1. 4 LR Copies

2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law, 'Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad.

4. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Dr' B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad '

5. TheAgencyDivisionalofficerandRevenueDivisionoffcer,Khammam'

6. TheAdditionalAgenttotheGovernment,Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri Kothagudem.

7. The Tahsildar, Singareni Mnadal, Khammam, District'

8. One CC to SRI P V. RAMANA Advocate [OPUC] g.TwoCCstoGPFoRSoClALWELFARE,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT] '10.Two CD CoPies sEcfo

GC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 1810912026 E@" e od ( {r{E Sr'lrF o t ssElllE o t * i)A {JEs *"',ORDER .J t-I WP.No.31205 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G,', %,e /)t