Telangana High Court
Bandela Mallikarjun vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 15396 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Petitioners all claim to be residents of Gorrekunta Village of Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District and belonging to SC-Mala Community. It is their case that Government allotted them 100 square yards house sites in Survey No. 55 in 1994 and issued pattas, some of which were later lost; the land was rocky and uneven, and they developed it over years. Due to poor finances, most could not construct houses and / or could only raise pillars. It is stated, they applied for Indiramma houses and double bedroom houses but received no support, reapplied recently, and the applications are pending. 1.1. While so, on 09-05-2025,respondent officials came with JCBs, cleared the land, removed boundary rocks and laid a foundation stone. When petitioners protested, they were informed that a 33/11 KV Sub-Station was to be constructed. On 12-05-2025, petitioners therefore, submitted a representation to the District Collector, RDO and Tahsildar seeking action and stoppage, but received no response. It is stated, petitioners later asked the authorities for details of the project and the required extent, but they did not respond and continued preparations. On 13-05-2025, petitioners 2 approached the Superintending Engineer, Operations Circle, TNPDCL and submitted a representation, but no action was taken. Work continued and they were prevented from entering their plots. When asked under what provision the works were taken up, no explanation was given.
1.2. Petitioners state that construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station makes them affected families under Act 30 of 2013, entitling them to procedures under Sections 4 to 23, compensation under Sections 26 to 30 and R&R under Section
31. They state that none of these were followed and no notification or notice was issued. As the land is assigned land, they state that respondents also failed to follow the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, including issuing revocation notice. They contend that taking their plots without following law violates Article 14, Article 19, Article 21 and Article 300A. The authorities are continuing markings and dumping material for construction, and if allowed, it is stated, petitioners will suffer hardship and irreparable loss.
2. The 4th respondent - Divisional Engineer, TNPDCL filed counter stating that consumers of Gorrekunta and nearby colonies were facing frequent power interruptions due to lengthy loaded feeders and increased loads; therefore, erection of a new 33/11 KV Sub-Station at this location was proposed, and a 3 request letter was submitted to the District Collector, Warangal, seeking allotment of Ac.1.00 of land for construction of the said Sub-Station at Gorrekunta. The District Collector, after considering the request, initiated proceedings for land allotment. The Government accorded permission to the District Collector to allot land and give advance possession for the Sub- Station. Accordingly, the District Collector, through proceedings dated 30.12.2024, allotted Ac.1.00 of land in Survey No.55 out of Acs.5.00 of Government poramboke land to the electricity department; advance possession of this land was given on 28.04.2025 through a panchanama, and the Tahsildar, Geesugonda, handed over the land after fixing boundaries. 2.1. Respondent No.4 further states that the allotted land was full of bushes, free from encroachments, and no constructions or house pillars were found; only Sarkar Thumma and thick bushes existed in the area. Sub-Station foundation work, switch-yard marking, and clearing of bushes were carried out strictly within the specified area. It is stated that all actions were based on the advance possession order and panchanama, and there was no violation of any rule or law and the Collector allotted the land as it was Government land.
2.2. It is asserted that the same contractor is presently working at Mogilicherla Sub-Station and at Gorrekunta no 4 active work is in progress. The Sub-Station at Gorrekunta is stated to be essential to meet future loads and ensure reliable power supply for consumers in the vicinity. The Collector has the authority to allot land and give advance possession to meet essential public needs such as electricity supply. It is stated that petitioners, by filing the Writ Petition, are attempting to deny the lawful rights of electricity consumers. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. If petitioners claim ownership over the land, they must approach the competent civil Court to establish title, as this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate disputes regarding title or ownership.
3. The 7th respondent - Tahsildar filed counter stating that the Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL, Warangal proposed establishment of 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Gareebnagar and requested allotment of Ac.1.00 of land; based on his instructions, the Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Girdawar identified Government land in Sy.No.55, measuring Acs.5.08 acres, at Gorrekunta Village, which is vacant, free from encroachments, and covered with bushes.
The Revenue Divisional Officer submitted proposals for alienation and the Collector, Warangal, through proceedings dated 30.12.2024, approved allotment of Ac.1.00. Advance 5 possession was also handed over to TSNPDCL on 28.04.2025 through a panchanama and location sketch.
3.1. It is stated, petitioners' claim of pattas is untenable. As per Revenue Records, the land in Survey No.55 remained vacant since 1990-91, with no houses, no constructions, and no occupation. Even if pattas were granted in 1994, petitioners violated Condition No.12 of the Assignment Rules by failing to construct houses for decades.
Since the land is Government Poramboku and vacant, no notice is required prior to alienation. As the allotted land is Government land and not private patta land, the question of initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or LARR Act, 2013 does not arise. Therefore, the demand for compensation is wholly misconceived.
3.2. It is stated, Ac.1.00 of land has been lawfully allotted to TSNPDCL, and it is for them to proceed with construction. Petitioners' representations seeking stoppage of work have no legal basis. The allegation that the Government is taking away petitioners' houses is incorrect. The land has been vacant for more than 30 years, and no houses or house sites existed at any point. Hence, no prior intimation or acquisition proceedings are required. It is submitted that out of the total Acs.5.08, a small portion (0.20-0.30 guntas) is being used for 6 the SC crematorium, and Ac. 1.00 has been allotted for 33/11 KV Sub-Station, which is a public utility.
The entire land falls within Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation limits, and use of Government land for public purpose is lawful.
4. Heard Sri Yeddu Divakar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL.
5. On consideration of the pleadings, documents and submissions, this Court is of the view that petitioners have failed to establish any legally-enforceable right over the subject land so as to maintain the present Writ Petition. The records placed by respondents, which remain unrebutted, clearly disclose that Survey No.55, to a total extent of Ac.05-08 guntas, is classified as Government Poramboke land and has remained vacant since 1990-91. Respondents have consistently stated that no constructions, no house sites, no pillars, and no occupation existed at any time in the said survey number. The assertion of the petitioners that they were granted pattas in 1994 is not supported by any substantial documentary evidence except general statements. Moreover, even assuming for argument's sake that pattas were issued, the admitted fact remains that they did not construct houses for more than three 7 decades, which as per the respondents amounts to violation of Condition No.12 of the Assignment Rules pertaining to assignment of house sites to weaker sections, which requires timely construction. Petitioners have not shown any material to dislodge the consistent stand of the respondents that land is Government land and that it remained vacant for more than three decades. There is no material produced to contradict the panchanama dated 28-04-2025, the boundary markings by the Tahsildar, and the classification reflected in the Revenue Records.
6. When once it is demonstrated that land in Survey No.55 is Government land, the contention of petitioners that respondents were required to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017, does not arise. Acquisition proceedings presuppose private ownership or valid transferable rights. Government land does not require acquisition from private parties. In such circumstances, the claim for compensation under Sections 26 to 30 of Act 30 of 2013 or rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 31 is wholly misconceived. Likewise, the allegations of violation of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 are also untenable as the respondents have stated that land is Government Poramboke 8 and has always been so, and petitioners have not shown otherwise. The contention that respondents violated Article 14, Article 19, Article 21 and Article 300A also cannot be sustained because there is no deprivation of private property when the land itself is Government land.
7. Respondents have further established through their respective counter affidavits that land was allotted pursuant to the request made by the Divisional Engineer for establishment of 33/11 KV Sub-Station, which is intended to provide uninterrupted and reliable power supply to Gorrekunta, Gareebnagar, and surrounding areas. The Collector issued Proceedings dated 30.12.2024 after due consideration and granted advance possession under panchnama on 28-04-2025. The purpose for which the land is allotted is clearly a public purpose, and petitioners have not demonstrated any illegality, procedural irregularity or legal prohibition against such allotment. This Court under Article 226 does not adjudicate disputed questions of title. Respondents have stated that if petitioners genuinely believe that they are owners, their remedy lies before the competent civil Court. Petitioners have not produced any evidence sufficient to establish prima facie title or occupation so as to warrant interference. On the other hand, 9 the documentary record placed by respondents supports their stand that land remained vacant Government Poramboke land.
8. In view of the above factual matrix and the legal position, the Court is satisfied that petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 25th November 2025 ksld