Telangana High Court
Bari Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.3032 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Housing Board appearing for respondent No.1, Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that they are in occupation and possession of land admeasuring about 40 to 60 square yards each in Sy. No.186 Part, Sri Sai Nagar, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State; that the respondent authorities are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid land without taking into consideration their long possession over the subject land; and that the respondents are not regularizing the land in their possession, which action of the respondents it is 2 contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that the Government had allotted land to an extent Ac.9.50 gts. to the 2nd respondent under G.O.Ms. No.1381 dated 26.10.2007; and that the 2nd respondent had constructed houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme to an extent of Ac.8.50 gts, thereby leaving an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. as open land belonging to the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that the petitioners have encroached on to the aforesaid extent of vacant land belonging to the 2nd respondent and made constructions therein without any valid title to the subject land.
5. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that since the petitioners have encroached on to the land belonging to the 2nd respondent, the respondent authorities have approached the concerned police authorities and made a complaint on 19.10.2024 seeking their eviction from the land.
6. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that since the subject land belongs to the 2nd respondent, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right, regularization of the land encroached by them.
3
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners are encroachers of the land vested with the 2nd respondent in terms of G.O.Ms. No.1381 dated 26.10.2007 and do not have any valid title to substantiate their possession except the fact of being in physical possession of the land.
9. Though the petitioners had sought for relief of issuing a direction to the respondents to regularize the aforesaid extent of land encroached by them, it is to be noted that a writ of mandamus cannot be granted to the respondents directing them to regularize the encroachment made by the petitioners.
10. Since, Sections 52 and 53 of the Telangana Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short 'the Housing Board Act') provides for manner and method of removing the encroachers of the land belonging to the Housing Board, this Court is of the view that the authorities shall initiate action for removing the encroachment by following the procedure prescribed under the Housing Board Act.
11. Notwithstanding the above, since the subject land is vested with the 2nd respondent Housing Board and being an instrumentality of the State, it is also open for the authorities to initiate necessary action under a summary procedure 4 prescribed under the Telangana Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short 'the Public Premises Act') for evicting the encroachers from their land. Since, the petitioners allege the respondent authorities without following the course of action prescribed under the Housing Board Act or under the Public Premises Act are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to follow due process of law for evicting the petitioners from the subject land.
12. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 04.02.2025 MRKR