P. SHARATH BABU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

(2.) Facts relevant to the issue, as can be culled out from the averments in the Writ Petition are as under: Petitioner claims that he purchased land to an extent of Acs. 3. 30 guntas in Survey No. 66/2 of Raidurg Panmakta Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by way of a registered sale deed dated 11. 04. 2005. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land. He obtained building permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and is undertaking construction of the buildings strictly in accordance with the building permission granted to him. Copy of the building permission dated 11. 07. 2018 is filed as Ex. P7 at Page No. 75 of the Writ Petition material paper book. Petitioner also enclosed photographs evidencing the construction activity undertaken on the subject premises as Ex. P6 from Page Nos. 72 to 74. While that being so, on 20.11.2018, a notice was issued under Section 7 of the Telangana State Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, 'the Act, 1905') alleging that petitioner is in occupation of the Government land and called upon him to show cause as to why eviction proceedings should not be taken against him. It appears, petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 27.11.2018. No further steps were taken thereafter. While so, on 11. 12. 2019, notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905 was issued to the petitioner. It is verbatim same to the previous notice. However, the said notice does not refer to the previous notice issued to the petitioner and the steps taken thereon, but shows as if for the first time, notice was issued. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken through the various documents forming part of the writ petition paper book to show the history of litigation and entries in the revenue records. According to learned senior counsel, the entries in the revenue records would disclose, for a very long time, the Government is not in possession of the subject land and third parties are in possession of the same including the original pattadar, by name, Sona Bai. Petitioner purchased the subject land from the successors of Sona Bai in the year 2005. He would submit that though endeavor was made in the year 1999 to change the entries in the revenue records, the same was set aside by this Court and thereafter no changes are affected and the Government's name is not reflected in the revenue records. He would therefore submit that having regard to the fact that admittedly the Government is not in possession of the subject land, but others are in possession from the year 2005 and the revenue records do not reflect the name of the Government, the provisions of the Act, 1905 are not attracted. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Taj Trading Company (1982) 2 SCC 141 and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and others(2010) 2 SCC 461.