Telangana High Court
Steeple Infra Care Private Limited 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. 1124 OF 2025
06.05.2026
Between:
Steeple Infra Care Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Pentom Srinivas Rao
..... 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 the land admeasuring Acs. 7.15 gts (Ac. 7.38 cents or 35,695 sq. yds or 29,844.58 sq. mtrs) situated in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1, Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No. 16337/2021 dated 28.12.2021, and since then, petitioner is in physical possession of the subject property without any disturbance from any quarter; consequent upon the purchase, the subject land was mutated in favour of Petitioner by proceedings dated 13.04.2022 and the name of Petitioner is duly reflected in the revenue records.
21.1. It is stated, the vendor of Petitioner had applied for conversion of subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural use and the competent authorities issued proceedings dated 30.03.2011 permitting such conversion; petitioner got the subject land surveyed through the Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and the land was duly demarcated under a panchanama dated 06.12.2023; the predecessors- in-title of Petitioner were the original owners and possessors of the subject land and upon purchase, petitioner has succeeded to such ownership and possession; Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies till date reflect the names of the vendors as well as Petitioner as owners and possessors of the subject land, and such entries in Khasra Pahani are records of rights which carry a presumption of correctness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand Vs DJP Karini Sabha 1.
1.2. It is stated, when Respondent No.2 and his personnel initially attempted to interfere with the possession of the subject property, the predecessors-in-title of petitioner instituted O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad, wherein Respondent No.2 had filed written statements; the said suits were decreed on 30.12.2004 1 AIR 1974 SC 1178 3 granting permanent injunction restraining Respondent No.2 and his agents from interfering with the possession of the predecessors-in-title of Petitioner, and the said decree has attained finality.
1.3. Notwithstanding the above decree and the fact that the subject lands are private patta lands, it is stated, Respondent No.3, under the instructions of Respondent No.2, invoked summary proceedings and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 in Form "A" under sub-section (1) and clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of public premises and calling upon them to vacate; Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction, power or authority to issue the said notice dated 02.02.2024 invoking the provisions of the Act, 1971 in view of the serious dispute regarding title and ownership of the subject property. 1.4. Immediately upon receipt of the said notice on 06.02.2024, according to petitioner, they applied for relevant material including certified copies of link documents, pahanies, mutation proceedings, land conversion proceedings and court papers in the above suits; after receiving the said material in the last week of February, 2024, Petitioner is stated to have 4 submitted a detailed reply dated 29.02.2024 along with material documents narrating the relevant facts and raising a prima facie objection to the notice dated 02.02.2024 on the ground that subject property does not fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act, 1971; petitioner specifically contended that Respondent No.3 had not furnished any material document to establish that the subject property is public premises, notice was without jurisdiction and authority, and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing.
1.5. Respondent No.3, despite receipt of explanation dated 29.02.2024 along with documents, did not consider the same and without affording an opportunity of hearing, passed the order dated 22.03.2024 in Form 'B' under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971 directing eviction within 15 days and authorizing use of force in case of non-compliance; the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 does not refer to or consider the explanation dated 29.02.2024 or the material documents submitted by Petitioner and is thus, in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.
1.6. It is contended by petitioner, the order dated 22.03.2024 being without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, petitioner preferred a statutory 5 Appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 by filing CMA No. 02 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Mancherial raising objections regarding jurisdiction and asserting that the subject property belongs to petitioner, though Respondents entered appearance in the said CMA, they did not file any material document establishing their ownership over the subject land; petitioner requested the appellate court to post the matter for marking of documents filed on their behalf, but learned Judge posted the matter directly for hearing and after hearing arguments, did not consider the material documents filed by petitioner and instead, relied on internal correspondence between Respondents and dismissed CMA No. 02 of 2024 on 03.12.2024.
1.7. The orders dated 02.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.3 are without jurisdiction, based on assumptions and presumptions and in the nature of collecting evidence; Respondent authorities have not disputed the ownership and possession of Petitioner, but sought to invoke the Act, 1971 without there being any proper survey conducted by competent authorities establishing encroachment; invocation of the provisions of the Act, 1971 is permissible only when the premises in question are public premises and only thereafter the 6 Estate Officer has limited jurisdiction to determine whether occupation is authorized or unauthorized. It is stated, the enquiry contemplated under the Act, 1971 is summary in nature and the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction where there exists a dispute regarding title and nature of the property; Respondent No.3 could not decide disputed questions of title between the South Central Railway and petitioner by invoking summary proceedings under the Act, 1971; Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to determine whether the South Central Railway or petitioner has title over the subject property, particularly in view of the subsisting permanent injunction order restraining interference with possession; Respondent No.3 wrongly assumed jurisdiction in respect of a civil dispute and issued notice dated 02.02.2024 and passed eviction order dated 22.03.2024.
1.8. It is contended, the issue as to whether notice under Form 'A' could be issued when there exists a dispute regarding title and boundaries arises for consideration; the Act, 1971 is intended to provide a speedy mechanism for eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises and is applicable only where there is no dispute regarding title and possession; 7 where there exists a bona fide dispute regarding title and boundaries involving complicated questions of law and fact, such disputes fall outside the scope of the Act, 1971 and cannot be adjudicated by the Estate Officer and the Authorities under the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to decide civil disputes relating to ownership and title, which are within the exclusive domain of civil Courts.
1.9. Petitioner raised a bona fide dispute regarding ownership of the subject property as against Respondents 1 to 3 (Union of India), and therefore Respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to invoke Sections 4 and Section 5 of the Act, 1971; there is no legally- sustainable finding in the impugned orders dated 02.02.2024 and 22.03.2024 that subject property is public premises; the Act, 1971 does not create any new right of eviction but merely provides a remedy for an existing right under general law; the question of declaration of ownership of immovable property between parties cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Act, 1971 and must be adjudicated by a competent civil Court.
1.10. Petitioner contends that there exists a bona fide and long-standing dispute as to ownership of the subject property 8 involving disputed questions of fact between petitioner and Respondents 1 to 3; Respondents cannot resort to summary proceedings under the Act, 1971 in the presence of such dispute and must seek appropriate remedies before a competent civil Court; the title of Respondents over the property in occupation of the Petitioner has not been admitted by Petitioner. It is stated, the predecessors-in-title of Petitioner had obtained decrees in O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on 30.12.2004 granting permanent injunction against Respondents, and the said aspect has not been considered by the appellate Court; the learned Principal District Judge, Mancherial erred in dismissing CMA No. 02 of 2024 on 03.12.2024 without considering the material aspects and documents placed on record.
2. By order dated 27.01.2025, this Court directed botht eh parties to maintain status quo in all respects with regard to the subject property and the said order is extended from time to time.
3. Respondents 1 to 6 filed a counter contending that they are in possession of land to an extent of about Acs.27.2 (approximately) in Sy. No. 612 and other survey numbers at Rechni Road Station yard of Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District since 1920, when the land was utilized for 9 laying a single line railway track between Ballarshah to Kazipet Section during the Nizam State Railways; 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 1966, as per blue print prepared during Nizam Rule and marked as Annexure-1.
3.1. It is stated, subsequently, during 1980, additional land to an extent of Ac.20.00 guntas was acquired for doubling of railway tracks between Ballarshah to Kazipet Section in Sy. Nos. 612/1/2 (Ac.3.0120 gts), 612/2/E/2 (Ac.3.2800 gts) and 612/5/AA/2 (Ac.14.0920 gts) as per CCLA and Dharani records; since 1920 till date, Respondents are in continuous possession of land to an extent of Ac.42.2 guntas in Sy. No. 612 and its sub-divisions and boundary pillars are existing on the site, supported by photographs marked as Annexure-3. It is also stated, at the instance of petitioner, a survey was conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Bellampally Division, Survey and Land Records, Mancherial, in the presence of Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and Railway officials after due notice; pursuant to file No. 1/Dis/2918/2023 and based on the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, survey of Sy. No. 612 was carried out in accordance with Circular No. A3/358/2009 10 and survey map dated 08.06.2009; that upon comparison of the land boundaries shown by the pattedars with the survey records, discrepancies were found and the location indicated in the survey did not match the boundaries shown by the current pattedar; that based on such discrepancies, the 3rd Respondent addressed letter No. SSE/W/BPA/Land Encroachment/2023 dated 05.12.2023 to the Senior Divisional Engineer (North), Secunderabad, identifying encroachments including that of 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 38,812.90 sq. meters, Kolipaki Mallikarjun, S/o Nagaiah to an extent of 088.20 sq. meters, and Sirangi Sravanthi, W/o Bandari Rajesham to an extent of 2570.7 sq. meters on the UP line side of Rechni Road Railway Station.
3.2. Pursuant to identification of encroachments and with due approval, the 3rd Respondent issued notice in Form 'A' dated 02.02.2024 under sub-section (1) and clause (b)(ii) of sub- section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, fixing personal hearing on 20.02.2024 at 15:00 hours; that despite sufficient opportunity, petitioner and other encroachers did not appear for personal 11 hearing; that thereafter, having no option, the 3rd Respondent issued eviction order in Form 'B' dated 22.03.2024 under Section 5(1) of the said Act directing the encroachers to vacate the premises within 15 days, failing which eviction would be carried out with necessary force.
3.3. It is stated, the burden lies on petitioner to establish its title, particularly when claiming rights over Government land; as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos. 1588-1589 of 2008 (Shri R. Hanumaiah & Another v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department) dated 24.02.2010, all lands which are not the property of any person or vested in a local authority belong to the Government, and any person claiming title must establish the same, especially in view of the longer limitation period of 30 years applicable to Government lands under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Government property is spread across the State and Courts must ensure that public property is not converted into private property. 3.4. It is further contended, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4702 of 2004 (Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Society) dated 07.01.2014, that a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the 12 strength of its own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case, and in the absence of proof of title, such claim must fail; similarly, as per judgment in C.A. Nos. 3688/2024 (Naganna (Dead) by LRs v. Siddaramegowda (Dead) by LRs) dated 19.03.2025, a person claiming ownership must establish correct property details, extent and boundaries with cogent evidence, failing which the claim cannot be accepted. 3.5. Petitioner failed to establish its title before the Authorities and was therefore, rightly treated as an encroacher; along with the Appeal filed by Petitioner, no documents were produced to substantiate title and during enquiry before the appellate court, no documents were marked on either side. Against the eviction order dated 22.03.2024, Petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial, seeking stay of eviction in respect of land in Sy. No. 612/AA/2/1 measuring 2904 sq. yards situated at Rechni Road Railway Station; upon consideration of Form 'A' notice and Form 'B' eviction order and the material on record, learned Judge dismissed the Appeal on 03.12.2024 confirming the eviction order by holding that the burden lies on the appellant to show that schedule property does not belong to Railways and 13 Respondents are public servants discharging official duties and their documents are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 3.6. It is further contended that petitioner itself had applied for survey and pursuant thereto, survey was conducted on 06.12.2023 by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Bellampally Division in the presence of Mandal Surveyor, Tandur and Railway officials and a panchanama along with location map was prepared; that based on the said survey and verification, encroachments were found within the boundaries of Railway land as per plans based on acquisition records. It is also stated, the subject lands have been in possession of Respondents since 1920 and were acquired for construction of railway lines including double line between Sirpur-Kagaznagar and Rechni Road Station and are under the custody and maintenance of Railway authorities; the Estate Officer is authorized by the Railway Board to deal with encroachments under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and accordingly notices in Form 'A' and 'B' were issued. 3.7. Respondents have been disputing the title and possession of Petitioner from the beginning and in view of their long-standing possession since Nizam era, a mere suit for 14 injunction as filed in O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 is not maintainable and the proper remedy would be a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and not a simple injunction suit; and on these grounds, the Respondents justify the action taken under the Act, 1971 and the dismissal of the appeal.
4. Petitioner filed a reply contending that the contention of Respondents that they are in possession of land admeasuring about Acs. 27.2 in Sy. No. 612 and other survey numbers at Rechni Road Station Yard of Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District since 1920 and that they have further acquired Acs. 20.00 in 1980 and are in possession of Acs. 42.2 guntas is false and incorrect; Respondents have not filed even a single document before this Court to establish such possession or acquisition; the alleged Annexures 1 to 3 referred to in the counter affidavit have not been filed; Respondents are making claims without knowing the exact extent of land owned or possessed by them and have failed to substantiate their claim of ownership or possession over Acs. 42.2 guntas in Sy. No. 612 and its sub-divisions.
4.1. When the survey authorities requested Respondents to participate in the survey proceedings to resolve the dispute, 15 Respondents addressed letter dated 07.02.2025 stating that they had applied for land documents from the revenue department and sought adjournment of the survey; that till date, Respondents have not produced any document to show that they are owners or possessors of the land claimed by them or Petitioner has encroached upon their land; that in the absence of such documentary proof, the claim of the Respondents cannot be accepted. 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 issued notices vide File No. 1/DIS/2918/2023 dated 06.10.2023, 12.10.2023, 20.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 to all the concerned the Railway authorities and conducted survey and demarcation in their presence and recorded panchanama on 06.12.2023; Respondents have denied the said survey and panchanama, therefore, Petitioner requested for a fresh survey in their presence.
4.2. Instead of cooperating with the survey process, it is stated, Respondents, for the first time, initiated summary proceedings under the 1971 Act by issuing notice dated 02.02.2024 under Sections 4(1) and Section 4(2)(b)(ii) alleging 16 encroachment without any basis; Petitioner, upon receipt of the said notice, made an Application dated 22.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act seeking documents relied upon by Respondents; without prejudice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 29.02.2024 along with link documents, pahanies, mutation proceedings, land conversion proceedings and court papers in both the suits raising objections that the subject property is not public premises and that the notice is without jurisdiction.
4.3. Respondents, instead of furnishing documents under the Right to Information Act, issued reply dated 12.03.2024 directing the Petitioner to approach revenue authorities, thereby demonstrating that they had issued notice dated 02.02.2024 without any supporting documents; despite receipt of Petitioner's explanation dated 29.02.2024 under acknowledgment, the 3rd Respondent did not consider the same and passed the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 in Form "B" under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971 without granting any opportunity of hearing and without referring to the explanation or documents submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 22.03.2024 by filing statutory appeal in CMA No. 02 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Mancherial raising 17 objections that subject property does not fall within the definition of 'public premises' and petitioner is the owner, learned Judge did not consider the material documents filed by Petitioner and instead, relied upon internal correspondence of Respondents and dismissed the Appeal on 03.12.2024; aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4.4. The contention of Respondents that encroachments are shown in the survey report is false and incorrect; the survey and panchanama dated 06.12.2023 are in favour of Petitioner and establish that Petitioner's land does not fall within the alleged Railway property; despite this, Respondents denied the said survey and avoided fresh survey proceedings by repeatedly seeking adjournments on the ground of lack of documents and even threatened the survey authorities; Petitioner has no objection to boundaries fixed as per survey and panchanama dated 06.12.2023. The contention of Respondents that they are in possession of the subject land is incorrect and the very issuance of notices under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1971 establishes that petitioner is in possession; Petitioner's predecessors-in-title are original owners and possessors and upon purchase under registered sale deed No. 16337/2021 18 dated 28.12.2021, petitioner became the owner and possessor; revenue records including Khasra Pahani, Chesala Pahani and other pahanies reflect the names of petitioner and its vendors as owners and possessors and such entries carry presumption of correctness.
4.5. It is stated, the decree of permanent injunction passed in O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on 30.12.2004 restraining Respondent No.2 from interfering with possession has attained finality and establishes long-standing possession of Petitioner and its predecessors; the said decree continues to operate and has not been set aside, therefore, Respondents cannot interfere. The representation dated 11.07.2024 made by Respondent No.3 to the Collector, Mancherial District resulted in enquiry by the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, who submitted report dated 10.02.2025 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bellampally and the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted report dated 21.05.2025 to the Collector, Mancherial District; the said report clearly states that the land in Sy. No. 612/8 admeasuring Acs. 25.00 guntas originally belonged to V. Narsing Rao and has subsequently changed hands and petitioner is in possession of Acs. 7.15 guntas in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1 by virtue of registered sale deeds and the same is reflected in revenue 19 records; the land was converted to non-agricultural use by proceedings dated 31.03.2011 on payment of Rs. 73,800/- vide Challan No. 14163 dated 30.03.2011.
4.6. It is also stated, the report further records that survey notices were issued and joint inspection was conducted in the presence of Railway authorities, Revenue authorities and petitioner and Railway authorities failed to produce any relevant documents to substantiate their claim of acquisition; the report further shows that only certain portions in Sy. Nos. 612/1, 612/2 and 612/5 are recorded in the name of Railways and not the land in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1 claimed by petitioner. The report dated 21.05.2025 clearly establishes that Respondents are not the owners or possessors of land admeasuring Acs. 42.2 guntas as alleged by them and that they have not furnished any document to substantiate their claim before the revenue authorities; the subject land claimed by the Petitioner is not part of the Railway land.
4.7. In view of the above facts, Respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1971; even assuming such jurisdiction, the proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and cannot be invoked where there exists a bona fide dispute regarding title and nature of the 20 property. The Estate Officer i.e., Respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title between the Petitioner and South Central Railway, particularly when there exists a subsisting decree of permanent injunction; that the Respondents have not produced any conclusive document to establish that the subject land is "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, 1971. The entire action of issuing notice dated 02.02.2024 under Section 4 and passing eviction order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971 is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to law, as the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in cases where there exists a bona fide dispute regarding title and ownership of the property.
5. Heard Sri M. Rajender 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 on behalf of Respondent No.7.
6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the primary issue that arises for consideration is whether Respondent No.3 was justified in invoking the provisions of the Act, 1971 in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the impugned proceedings culminating in the 21 order dated 22.03.2024, as confirmed by the appellate order dated 03.12.2024 in CMA No. 02 of 2024, suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. It is not in dispute that petitioner claims title over the subject property admeasuring Acs. 7.15 gts (Ac. 7.38 cents or 35,695 sq. yds or 29,844.58 sq. mtrs) situated in Sy. No. 612/8/1/1 of Tandur Village and Mandal, Mancherial District, under a registered sale deed bearing No. 16337/2021 dated 28.12.2021 and the said property has been mutated in its favour vide proceedings dated 13.04.2022. It is also not in dispute that predecessors-in-title of petitioner had obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2001 on 30.12.2004. Respondents, however, assert that the subject land forms part of Railway property and that they are in possession of land to an extent of about Acs.27.2 in Sy. No. 612 and other survey numbers at Rechni Road Station Yard since 1920 during the Nizam State Railways and that such land was subsequently transferred to South Central Railway in 1966 and further land was acquired in 1980 for doubling of railway tracks. Respondents rely upon survey proceedings and records 22 to contend that Petitioner is an encroacher to an extent of 38,812.90 sq. meters.
8. It is thus evident that rival claims are made by the parties with regard to title and possession of the subject property. However, the existence of such rival claims by itself does not denude the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, 1971, particularly when Respondents assert that the property forms part of public premises belonging to the Railways. The scheme of the Act, 1971 provides a mechanism for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. The definition of 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Act includes premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the Central Government or Government companies, which would include Railway properties. The Estate Officer is empowered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to determine whether occupation is unauthorized and to pass eviction orders.
9. In the present case, Respondents placed reliance on historical possession, acquisition records and survey proceedings to assert that the land in question forms part of Railway property. The survey conducted on 06.12.2023 and subsequent identification of encroachments, including that of Petitioner, constituted the basis for initiation of proceedings 23 under Section 4 of the Act. The contention of petitioner that the Act, 1971 cannot be invoked in the presence of a dispute regarding title cannot be accepted in absolute terms. The Estate Officer is competent to examine the nature of occupation and prima facie determine whether the property falls within the ambit of public premises. The mere assertion of title by the Petitioner does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer.
10. It is also relevant to note that the burden lies on the person who claims ownership over the property to establish such title. Respondents have specifically contended that Petitioner failed to establish its title before the authorities. The appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the burden lies on the Petitioner to prove that the property does not belong to the Railways. The record further discloses that notice under Form 'A' dated 02.02.2024 was issued to Petitioner fixing personal hearing on 20.02.2024. Respondents have stated that Petitioner did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the Estate Officer proceeded to pass the eviction order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 5(1) of the Act.
11. The contention of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, as an 24 opportunity of hearing was afforded to Petitioner. Merely because the order does not elaborate upon each contention raised in the reply would not render the proceedings invalid, particularly when petitioner had an opportunity to contest the matter. The Appellate Authority, namely the Principal District Judge, Mancherial, upon consideration of the material on record, has confirmed the eviction order by dismissing CMA No. 02 of 2024 on 03.12.2024. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that petitioner failed to establish that subject property does not belong to Railways and that the documents relied upon by Respondents are public documents.
12. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the statutory authorities. Interference is warranted only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest illegality or violation of principles of natural justice. No such ground is made out in the present case. The issues raised by petitioner essentially pertain to disputed questions of title and possession which require adjudication on the basis of evidence. Such disputes are not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings. Petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies before a competent civil Court for declaration of title and other 25 consequential reliefs. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of Respondent No.3 in invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and passing the eviction order dated 22.03.2024, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 03.12.2024 in CMA No. 02 of 2024, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
14. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th May 2026 ksld