Telangana High Court
Sirangi Sravanthi vs The Union Of India on 6 May, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 1070 OF 2025
06.05.2026
Between:
Sirangi Sravanthi
..... Petitioner
And
The Union of India,
Rep. by its Under Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2904 square yards (0.24 guntas) in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 situated at Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 18953/2022 dated 16.12.2022, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted physical possession of the subject property from the date of purchase without any disturbance from any quarter. After purchase of the subject property, the same was mutated in favour of petitioner vide proceedings No. 1904-1-18953/2022 dated 20.12.2022 and her name was reflected in the revenue 2 records. Petitioner has also got the subject land surveyed through the Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and demarcated the same under a panchanama dated 03.10.2023. Petitioner's predecessors-in-title were the original owners and possessors of the subject land and, upon purchase, she has become the lawful owner and possessor of the said property. 1.1. It is stated, Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies till date reflect the names of vendors as well as Petitioner as owners and possessors of the subject land and the entries in Khasra Pahani, being records of rights, carry a presumption of correctness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand v. DJP Karini Sabha 1. Respondent No.3, under the instructions of Respondent No.2, ignoring the above documents and the fact that the subject land is a private patta land, invoked the summary procedure under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 in Form 'A' under Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act alleging that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of public premises and is liable to be evicted.
1 AIR 1974 SC 1178 3 1.2. It is further stated, Respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction, power or authority to invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of the subject property as there exists a serious dispute with regard to title and ownership of the said land. Immediately upon receipt of notice dated 02.02.2024 on 06.02.2024, Petitioner applied for relevant material including certified copies of link documents, pahanies and mutation proceedings and after receiving the same in the first week of March, 2024, submitted a detailed reply dated 13.03.2024 along with material documents to Respondents raising prima facie objections to the notice and specifically contending that the subject property does not fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act, 1971.
1.3. Petitioner also contended that Respondent No.3 had not furnished any material document to establish that subject property constitutes public premises under the Act and notice dated 02.02.2024 is without jurisdiction, power and authority, and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondent No.3, despite having received the explanation dated 13.03.2024 along with material documents, did not consider the same and without affording an opportunity of hearing, passed the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 in Form 'B' under Section 4 5(1) of the Act directing Petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days, failing which forcible eviction would be carried out. 1.4. The impugned eviction order dated 22.03.2024 does not refer to or consider the explanation dated 13.03.2024 or the material documents submitted by petitioner and the same is without jurisdiction, authority and power and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.2024, invoked Section 9 of the Act and filed statutory appeal in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Mancherial raising objections that the subject property is not public premises and asserting her ownership over the same. Respondents entered appearance in the said Appeal but did not file any material document establishing their ownership over the subject land.
1.5. Petitioner requested the appellate Court to post the matter for marking of documents filed on her behalf; however, the learned Judge posted the matter for hearing and thereafter, dismissed the Appeal on 03.12.2024 without considering the material documents filed by petitioner and instead, relying upon internal correspondences between the Respondents. The orders dated 02.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.3 are based on assumptions and presumptions and are in the 5 nature of collecting evidence and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to petitioner as she never admitted that subject land in her occupation is a public premises owned by Respondents. Respondent authorities have not disputed the ownership and possession of Petitioner, yet sought to invoke the provisions of the Act without conducting any proper survey by competent authorities to establish alleged encroachment. 1.6. The provisions of the Act, 1971 confer only limited jurisdiction on the Estate Officer to determine whether occupation is authorized or unauthorized in respect of public premises and such jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless the premises in question is established as public premises. The enquiry contemplated under the Act is summary in nature and cannot be used to decide disputed questions of title and ownership and the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to determine whether Petitioner or the South Central Railway has title over the subject property. When there exists a dispute with regard to title and boundaries of property, Respondent No.3 could not have invoked the provisions of the Act and issued notice under Form 'A' followed by eviction order under Form 'B'. 1.7. Petitioner raised a bona fide dispute with regard to ownership of subject property vis-à-vis Respondents 1 to 3 6 (Union of India) involving disputed questions of fact and such disputes cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Act, 1971 and must be decided by a competent civil court. There is no legally-sustainable finding in the impugned notices and orders dated 02.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 that subject property constitutes public premises under the Act, 1971. The Act does not create any new right of eviction but only provides a remedy for enforcement of an existing right and the question of declaration of ownership of immovable property cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the said Act. 1.8. The civil Court alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of declaration of ownership of the subject property and Respondents cannot resort to summary proceedings under the Act in the presence of a bona fide dispute of title. The learned Principal District Judge, Mancherial, while dismissing C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 by order dated 03.12.2024, failed to consider the above aspects and the material documents filed by the Petitioner and erroneously upheld the orders of Respondent No.3.
2. Respondents 1 to 6 filed counter contending that they are in possession of land to an extent of approximately Acs.27.2 in Sy. No. 612 and other survey numbers at Rechini 7 Road Railway Station Yard, Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, since 1920, originally for laying a single line railway track between Ballarshah and Kazipet section during the Nizam State Railways, and upon merger of Nizam State into the Union of India, the said land stood transferred to Central Railway and thereafter to South Central Railway in the year 1966 as per blue print prepared during Nizam rule. 2.1. In 1980, additional land to an extent of Acs. 20.00 guntas was acquired for doubling railway tracks between Ballarshah and Kazipet section in Sy. Nos. 612/1/2 to an extent of Ac. 3.0120 guntas, 612/2/E/2 to an extent of Ac. 3.2800 guntas, and 612/5/AA/2 to an extent of Ac. 14.0920 guntas, as per CCLA and Dharani records, marked as Annexure-2. From 1920 till date, Respondents are in continuous possession of land to an extent of Acs. 42.2 guntas in Sy. No. 612 and its sub- divisions along with other survey numbers of Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, and boundary pillars are existing at site supported by photographs.
2.2. At the instance of petitioner, it is stated, a survey was conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Bellampally, in the presence of the Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and Railway officials, after issuance of notice and a panchanama dated 8 06.12.2023 along with location map was prepared. That upon verification of Sy. No. 612 based on Revenue Divisional Officer's orders in File No. 1/Dis/2918/2023 and comparison with survey map dated 08.06.2009 in terms of Circular No. A3/358/2009, discrepancies were found between the boundaries shown by pattadars and the survey records. In view of non-matching of boundaries, the 3rd Respondent intimated vide letter dated 05.12.2023 to the Senior Divisional Engineer (North), Secunderabad, regarding encroachments by (1) Checkati Kishore Kumar Goud S/o. Cheekati Posha Goud, Manager of M/s. Steeple Infra Care Private Limited, Rajender Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of 38812.90 sq. meters, (2) Kolipaki Mallikarjun S/o. Nagaiah to an extent of 988.20 sq. meters, and (3) Srirangi Sravanthi W/o. Bandari Rajesham to an extent of 2570.7 sq. meters on the UP line side of Rechini Road Railway Station.
2.3. Pursuant to the above, with due approval, the 3rd Respondent issued Form 'A' notice dated 02.02.2024 under Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act fixing personal hearing on 20.02.2024 at 15:00 hours, but petitioner and other encroachers did not appear for the personal hearing despite sufficient opportunity. In respect of land belonging to 9 Government of India, the burden lies on the person claiming title to establish the same and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos. 1588-1589 of 2008 (R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, dated 24.02.2010), wherein it is held that unoccupied lands belong to the Government unless a person establishes his title, and that a higher standard of proof is required in suits against the Government in view of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in C.A. No. 4702 of 2004 (Union of India & Ors. v. Vasavi Cooperative Society, dated 07.01.2014) holding that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, and also on the judgment in C.A. Nos. 3688 of 2024 (Naganna (Dead) by LRs v. Siddaramegowda (Dead) by LRs, dated 19.03.2025) holding that a person claiming ownership must establish the same by cogent and acceptable evidence.
2.4. Having found encroachments and in the absence of any valid claim established by Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent issued Form 'B' order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 5(1) of the Act declaring petitioner and others as encroachers and directing them to vacate the premises within 15 days, failing 10 which eviction would be carried out using necessary force. Against the said eviction order, Petitioner filed Appeal under Section 9 of the Act in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial, seeking stay of eviction from land admeasuring 2904 square yards in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 situated at Rechini Road Railway Station, Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District. Respondents contested the said appeal and no documents were marked on either side during the enquiry. The learned Judge, upon consideration of Form 'A' notice and Form 'B' order and being satisfied with the eviction proceedings, dismissed the Appeal on 03.12.2024 holding that the burden lies on the appellant to prove that schedule property does not belong to the Railways and the land is the exclusive property of the Railways.
2.5. Respondents have no personal interest in the subject matter and are public servants discharging their official duties, and the documents relied upon by them are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the competent authority.
112.6. It is stated, petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the orders without properly contesting the matter before the primary authorities or effectively substantiating her claim before the appellate court, and that Form 'A' notice dated 02.02.2024 and Form 'B' order dated 22.03.2024 were issued under the provisions of the Act for eviction of the Petitioner, who has encroached upon land to an extent of 2570.7 sq. meters in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 by erecting temporary fencing at Rechini Road Railway Station, Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District. This Court, by order dated 27.01.2025, directed both the parties to maintain status quo.
2.7. At the request of Petitioner, survey was conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Bellampally Division, in the presence of Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and Railway officials, and a panchanama and location map dated 06.12.2023 were prepared, and based on the said survey and identification of unauthorized constructions, encroachments were found within the railway boundary as per plans based on land acquisition in Sy. No. 612 and other survey numbers of Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District. The subject lands are in continuous possession of respondents since 1920, including lands acquired for construction of double line from Sirpur to 12 Kagaznagar and Rechini Road Station, and are under the custody and maintenance of Railway authorities, and the Estate Officer is duly authorized by the Railway Board to deal with encroachments under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and accordingly, issued Form 'A' and Form 'B'. Respondents have been disputing the title and possession claimed by Petitioner from the beginning, and in view of their possession since Nizam era, the suits filed by Petitioner being O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad for injunction is not maintainable and the proper remedy is to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and not a mere suit for injunction.
3. Petitioner filed reply contending that respondents have not filed any document whatsoever to show or prove their alleged possession of Acs. 27.2 guntas or acquisition of Acs. 20.00 guntas. Respondents, without knowing the exact extent of land owned or possessed by them, are making false claims. When the survey authorities requested Respondents to attend for survey of the disputed land, the latter addressed letter dated 07.02.2025 to the survey authorities stating that they had applied for land documents with the revenue department and sought adjournment of survey, and till date no 13 document has been furnished by Respondents to establish ownership or possession of Acs. 42.2 guntas or to show that Petitioner has encroached upon their land.
3.1. It is stated, petitioner had filed an Application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bellampally, for demarcation of land in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1 and pursuant thereto, the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Bellampally conducted demarcation after issuing notices to all concerned including the Railway authorities and recorded a panchanama dated 03.10.2023 in the presence of all parties including the Respondents. Despite the same, Respondents denied the survey proceedings and for the first time, initiated summary proceedings under the Act by issuing Form 'A' notice dated 02.02.2024 under Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2)(b)(ii) alleging encroachment without any basis, on receipt of which, petitioner submitted Application dated 22.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act seeking copies of documents relied upon by Respondents for issuing notice dated 02.02.2024. Without prejudice to her rights, petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 13.03.2024 along with link documents, pahanies, mutation proceedings and land conversion proceedings obtained in the last week of February, 2024, raising objections that the 14 subject property does not fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act, 1971 and that the notice is without jurisdiction.
3.2. Respondents, by reply dated 12.03.2024 under the RTI Act, directed Petitioner to approach revenue authorities for the documents, thereby demonstrating that the notice dated 02.02.2024 was issued without any supporting material. Despite receipt of explanation dated 13.03.2024 under acknowledgement, Respondent No.3 did not consider the same and without affording any opportunity of hearing, passed eviction order dated 22.03.2024 in Form 'B' under Section 5(1) of the Act directing eviction within 15 days, and the said order does not refer to or consider the explanation and documents submitted by Petitioner.
3.3. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed statutory appeal in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Mancherial, but the learned Judge dismissed the same on 03.12.2024 without considering the material documents filed by petitioner and instead relying upon internal correspondences of respondents, necessitating filing of the present writ petition challenging orders dated 02.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 and the appellate order dated 03.12.2024. 15 3.4. It is the Respondents who ought to have instituted a suit for declaration of title against petitioner, as they are disputing her ownership and seeking eviction from the schedule property, and the burden lies upon respondents to establish their title. The contention of respondents that they are in possession of the subject land is incorrect and the very act of issuing notices under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishes that petitioner is in possession of the subject property. As per the documents relied upon by petitioner, her predecessors-in- title were the original owners and possessors of the subject land and upon purchase, petitioner has become the owner and possessor thereof.
3.5. It is stated, Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies reflect the names of the vendors as well as petitioner as owners and possessors of subject land and that entries in Khasra Pahani are records of rights carrying presumption of correctness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand Vs DJP Karini Sabha (supra). Without prejudice to the above contentions, even assuming that Respondents have jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act, the enquiry contemplated under the Act is 16 summary in nature and cannot be invoked where there exists a dispute with regard to title and nature of the property. The Estate Officer, ie. Respondent No.3, has no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title of determine whether the South Central Railway or Petitioner has title over the subject property, especially when there is a subsisting permanent injunction order restraining Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner. Respondent No.3 has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in respect of a civil dispute and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 and passed eviction order dated 22.03.2024 under the provisions of the Act, 1971.
4. Sri M. Rajendedr Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Respondents 1 to 6 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent No.7.
5. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the action of Respondents in invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and issuing notice dated 02.02.2024 under Section 4, followed by the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 5 of the Act, as confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.12.2024 in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024, suffers from lack of 17 jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were initiated by the competent authority and culminated in the eviction order dated 22.03.2024. It is also not in dispute that petitioner availed statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 9 of the Act by filing C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Mancherial, and the said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2024 confirming the eviction order.
7. The main contention of petitioner is that the subject land admeasuring 2904 square yards in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 situated at Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District is private land and does not fall within the ambit of "public premises" as defined under the Act, 1971, therefore, respondents lack jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the said Act. It is further contended that there exists a bona fide dispute with regard to title which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. This Court finds that the said contention has been specifically considered by the competent authority as well as by the appellate court. The material placed on record by Respondents indicates that the Railway Administration has 18 been in possession of land in Sy. No. 612 and its sub-divisions, including the area in question, since 1920, initially, under the Nizam State Railways and thereafter, under the Central Government and South Central Railway. The records further indicates that additional land was acquired in 1980 for railway doubling works and that the land forms part of railway property.
8. The survey conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey on 06.12.2023, in the presence of concerned authorities, and the panchanama and location map prepared pursuant thereto, discloses discrepancies between the boundaries claimed by petitioner and the official survey records. The said survey forms the basis for identification of encroachment, including the alleged encroachment by petitioner to an extent of 2570.7 square meters. Petitioner has not been able to place any material before this Court to demonstrate that the findings recorded in the survey proceedings or the conclusions drawn by the authorities are arbitrary, perverse, or unsupported by any material. The contention that respondents have not produced documents is a matter that has been considered by the authorities below, and this Court does not find any manifest error in the appreciation of such material.
19
9. Insofar as the contention relating to lack of jurisdiction on account of existence of title dispute is concerned, it is well-settled that while complicated questions of title are ordinarily to be adjudicated by competent civil courts, the provisions of the Act confer jurisdiction upon the Estate Officer to determine whether a person is in unauthorised occupation of public premises. Existence of a dispute raised by a party does not, ipso facto, oust the jurisdiction of the authority, particularly where the authority proceeds on the basis of official records and long-standing possession indicating that the land forms part of public premises.
10. In the present case, the authorities have exercised jurisdiction upon arriving at a prima facie satisfaction, based on survey records, acquisition records, and possession, that the subject land forms part of railway property. Petitioner has not demonstrated that such satisfaction is wholly without basis or that the proceedings are vitiated by patent lack of jurisdiction. The contention of petitioner regarding violation of principles of natural justice has also been considered. The record discloses that notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 02.02.2024 fixing a date for personal hearing. Petitioner, admittedly, submitted reply dated 13.03.2024 along with documents. The 20 mere fact that the final order does not accept petitioner's case does not lead to the conclusion that the reply was not considered. In the absence of any material to establish that reasonable opportunity was denied, the plea of violation of natural justice cannot be sustained.
11. Further, petitioner has availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Act. The appellate authority, upon consideration of the material on record, has confirmed the findings of the Estate Officer. It is trite law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute its own conclusions for that of the statutory authorities, unless the findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory provisions. No such ground has been made out in the present case.
12. The judgments relied upon by petitioner, which lay down that disputed questions of title ought to be adjudicated by civil courts, are not in dispute as propositions of law. However, their applicability depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the authorities have proceeded on the basis of official records and possession indicating that the land is railway property, and the Petitioner has not established that the 21 dispute raised is of such a nature as to render the proceedings wholly without jurisdiction.
13. This Court is also of the considered view that the statutory scheme of the Act, 1971 provides a complete mechanism for eviction of un-authorized occupants of public premises, including a remedy of appeal. Petitioner having availed such remedy and having failed therein, cannot seek to reopen factual findings in writ jurisdiction in the absence of any jurisdictional error or manifest illegality. On an overall consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that initiation of proceedings under Section 4, passing of eviction order under Section 5 dated 22.03.2024, and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.12.2024 in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024 do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, or violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, this Court holds that petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference with the impugned notice dated 02.02.2024, eviction order dated 22.03.2024, and the appellate order dated 03.12.2024 passed in C.M.A. No. 04 of 2024.
22
15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
16. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th May 2026 ksld