WP/31475/2025 of Sankatala Poolamma Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited on 6 January 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be the owner o[ agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3-23 Gts. in Survey Nos.120/2, l22l3A and l22l3AA of Uppalapadu Village, Baylraram Mandal, Mahabubabad District. According to her, R & B Road laid about 40 years ago runs from Lakshmi Narasimha Puram Village towards Gouraram Village through forest land and between the said road and her patta land, Ac.O-23 Gts. of land exists on the eastern side of the road, which is forest land, and that she has been in occupation and cultivation of the said extent for about 35 years, raising chilli crop. She claims that her rights over Ac.0-23 Gts. have been perfected by adverse possession.

1.1. While so, Respondent No.4, who is rlc Contractor, illegally encroached upon the land of petitioner ar I commenced construction of trlectricity Sub station for Resptlrt lents L and 2 Northern Power Distribtttion Company of Telar ganzr Limited (NPDCL). Petitioner therefore, submitted an App cation under the Right to Information Act seeking information rs to whether any permission was granted by the Revenue - lpartment or Forest Department and seeking details ther r[. She also submitted representation dated 13. i0.2025 c 'lahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal and representa[ion dated | '7.1O.2025 to lhe District Collector, Mahabubabad and also irr []raiavani on 13.1O.2025 r.r,hich were forwarded to the Electricrt ' Department through acknowledgment dated 13.1O.2O25. 1'l rough these representations, petitioner requcstcd the authr rities to stop construction in her land and to undertake consrr uction of the sybsration, ii required, only in Government lancl. | .2. Petitioner asserts that land whcre c ; lslruction of sub-station was commenced is forest lald and it'r ls lelt on the eastern side of the road; several farmers, throughr rt the length of the road, are in possession and cultivating sirriar extents of land situated on the eastern side of the road. Ht r grievance is that no notice whatsoever was issucd prior to co I mencing the I construction work. Even assuming that land in her possession belongs to Revenue Department or Forest Department, the only legal course available to the authorities is to evict her by following due process of law and only thereafter, proceed with any construction activity. Respondents have no right to interfere with her possession and commence construction of sub-station without adherence to due process of law.

2. Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that petitioner hled this Writ Petition with the sole intention of stalling installation of Electricity sub-staLion on Government land measuring Ac.O.2O gts- situated in Survey No.92/ I of Jamandlapalli (Laxminarasimhapuram) Village, Mahabubabad District which is entirely distinct, separate and unrelated to the land claimed by petitioner. While petitioner seeks a direction to restrain construction alleging interference with her land situated in Survey Nos.12O/2. 122/3A and l22l3AA measuring Ac.0.23 gts, the substation construction is being undertaken exclusively on Government land in Survey No.92l1 and not on petitioner's claimed land. Therefore, it is asserted that the question of trespass, encroachment or unlau,ful interference by Respondents with petitioner's land does not arise at all \-\'..---+!ti \_1 \-

2.1. It is stated, even as per petitioner's t vn pleadings, the land allegedly claimed to be in her possession :; forcst land; she herself asscrts adverse possession over forest I Lnd and Iand abutting the road. The Writ Petition is not nl;r ntainable as petitioner has nowhere asserted that she is thc awful owner with valid titlc or legally recognized rights ove r thc Lantl claimed by her. The disputes relating to title, ownership ( r possessory rights over immovable property cannot be adju I ca tcd under A rt icle 2 2b of I he Con stitution.

2.2. Respondent No. 1 stated that son of p: 'itioner high- handedly intcrfered with and caused damage t( construction activities berng carried out for installation of sub st Ltiotr on land lawfutl1, allotled to NPDCL measuring Ac.0.2O : s ir-r Survey No.92/ 1 ot Jamandlapalli (Laxminarasimhapu r rm) Village, Maherbubabact District. Pursuant to the requisi ln made b1' NPDCL, and after obtaining necessary reports frorr thc revenue authorities, the District Collector, Mahabub r rad, issued Proceedings dated 08.O5.2025, directing transfer ( 'l Government land measuring Ac.O.20 gts in Survey No.92l1 of J rmandlapalli in favour of NPDCL, the market value of which rvrt i determined at Rs.3,37,500/- per acre, and pursuant t ) the said ) proceedings, possession of the land was formally handed over to NPDCL by the Revenue authorities under a Panchanama.

2.3. Following the same, Respondent No.4 - Contractor commenced construction within the boundaries and extent of the said land. At no point of time, did Respondents or the Contractor enter into or encroach upon the land claimed by petitioner. On the contrary, it is alleged, petitioner, with the assistance of her son, encroached into the land allotted to Respondents and hlled up all pits dug for laying pillars and basement works, thereby causing severe hnancial loss and obstruction to the construction activities.

3. Petitioner also liled rejoinder stating that forest land in Telangana cannot be alienated, transferred or diverted for non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government as mandated under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 198O. The said Act contains a non-obstante ciause overriding all State laws and authorities. Hence, the proceedings of the DisLrict Coliector dated 08.05.2025 are illegal and contrary to forest laws. It is contended that the Forest Department, being the owner of the land in Survey No.92l I of Jamandlapalli (Laxminarasimhapuram) Village, is not competent to alienate foresf-land ,.irr "favour of Revenue Department and Revenue \ l

Departmenr has r-ro authority to allot such land r DISCOMs or TS TRANSCO lor construction of a substation. Pet tioner asserts that the District Collector is not empowered to grl rt permission under G.O Ms.No.57 1 (Assgn.l) Department, Re renue, datcd 14 .O9 .2012. and denies that lawful physicarl xrssession of Ac.O 20 Gts. in Survey No.92/ 1 was ever hzr Lded over to Respondents I and 2.

4. Ileard Ms. Pingali Lakshmi, learner counsel for petitioner as well as Sri A. Chandra Shaker, lear red Standing Counscl for Respondents l and 2 and learnerl Government Pleader for l?evenue on behalf of Respondent No.3

5. At the outset, it is evident that petiti,r rer's primary claim is based on alleged possession and adver: - possession over land which she herself describes as forest l;r rd. She docs not assert lau'ful title over Survey No.92l 1 of i rmandlapalli (Laxminarasimhapuram) Village, the Iand on u.hrc r substation is admittedlv being constructed as per Procr r Cings dated 08.05.2025. Her :rdmitted pzrtta lands are in Surv I ' Nos.120/2, 122/3A and l22l3AA of Uppalapadu Village Bayyaram Mandal, Mahabubabad District, 'a,hich are distincl rnd separate survey numbcrs l

6. Respondent No.3 has placed on record the proceedings of the District Collector, Mahabubabad dated 08.05.2025 to show that in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 571, dated

14. O9 .2012, permission was accorded for transfer of governmenl land in Survey No. 92/1 in an extent of Ac.0.2O guntas in favour of Superintending Engineer for the purpose of establishment o[ 33/ 1l KV sub-station in Jamandlapally Village ad handing over physical possession of the said land subject to the condition Lhat the same shall be put to utilisation by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Circule, TGNPDCL, Mahabubabad within two years and for the purse for which it was allotted; and if they lail to utilize the said [and, the order of transfer would be revoked and the land should be resumed by the Revenue Department and may allot to any other government department. The Tahsildar, Mahabubabad was therefore, directed to hand over possession of the land in favour of Superintending Engineer. After taking over physical possession, thc Superintending Engineer shall take measures for protection ol the land with boundary stones and pillars and erect a board showing that the allotted land belongs to their department. 7 . Petitioner's challenge is essentially to the validity of the above-said proceedings on the ground of alleged forest status and lack of Central Government approval. I he contention regarding violation of the Forest (Conservatic r ) Act, 1980, though raise<I, does not, by itself, confer a right rr ron petitioner to restrain cons[rucl.ion when she does not establ ;h lawful title or posscssion over the land in Survey No.92/ 1. S uch disputed questions involving classification of land, titl€, authoriry of alienation and factual possession cannot trc aclju< icated in writ jurisdicLion r-rnder Article 226 of the Constitr t on. Further, petitioner herself asserLs adverse possession, wh r h, b1, its very nature, involves clisputed facts requiring eviden, The settled legal position is that claims of adverse posse.;ion, title or ownership over immovable property must be ad. r dicaled by a competent civil cour[ and not in writ proceedings.

8. Here, it is to bc noted, installation o1-,' :ctricity sub- station is in the intercst of public to cater to fu r re electricity requirements and ensure reliable supply. Balance of convenience and public interest clearly ur igh against interference in the present u.r'it proceedings. Ir vie'"v of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opir ion that Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismisserl

9. Accordingl-"-, the Writ Petition is c i ;missed. No costs. \

10. Consequently, the any shall stand closed. One CC to Ms. PIN One CC to SRI A.C Two CCs to GP FO Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies miscellaneous Applications, if -SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER GALI LAKSHMI, Advocate [O HANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR N DCL [OPUC] R REVENUE, High Court for the e of Telangana, at To C

PSK.

HIGH COURT DATED:0610112026

ORDER

WP.No.31475 of 2025 1:,,.,:;1,'i \ !a' C)() 20?[ J- *

ir iS \T DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'ba (