Telangana High Court
Enjamuri Sravani , Kukkala Sravani vs The State Of Telangana, on 23 July, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No. 4218 of 2023
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent
Nos.1 & 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
for respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing for respondent No.5, and perused the record.
2. The petitioner, by the present Writ Petition has assailed
the action of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in interfering with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment over house property bearing
Door No.6-51 situated at Nereducherla Village & Mandal,
Suryapet District, as being highly illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and in
violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of
India.
3. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition is that the Government of Andhra
Pradesh has allotted land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents bearing
2
plot No.70A in survey No.272 of Nereducherla Village & Mandal,
in the name of Enjamuri Janakamma vide proceedings
No.B/6670/2003, dt.03.04.2003; that the said allottee had
constructed a small house with ACC sheet, which was mutated
in her name in Grampanchayath records and allotted issued
Door No.6/51; and that she resided therein up to the year
2009.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid
land along with a small temporary house constructed with ACC
sheets has been sold by the allottee to the petitioner on
09.01.2009 by executing an agreement of sale by receiving the
total consideration reserved thereunder and thereafter, the
petitioner has been living in the said house with her children.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent by
sending its staff had demanded and threatened her to vacate
the house and to hand over the same to them; that on the
petitioner refusing to vacate the said premises, the respondents
have developed grudge against her; and that the respondents
are trying to demolish the house and dispossess the petitioner
without issuing any notice and without following due process of
3
law, which action it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary,
with a consequential direction to the respondents not to
interfere with the peaceful possession and not to demolish the
house.
6. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 is filed.
By the counter affidavit, it is contended that the claim of the
petitioner of the land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in survey
No.272 with allotted plot No.70/A being allotted to one
Smt.E.Jankamma, is based on the purported proceedings,
dt.03.04.2003, which is a fabricated document; that Enjamuri
Janakamma, who is claimed to be the original allottee is none
other than the sister-in-law of the petitioner herein, had
encroached the road in survey No.272 and erected a tin shed
therein; that during the year 2009, the said Enjamuri
Janakamma brought into existence an unregistered sale deed
showing the sale of disputed site to the petitioner; that prior to
the respondents initiating action, no one used to reside therein;
that on account of the Grampanchayat being upgraded into
Municipality, necessity has arisen to form the road for the use
4
of the residents; and that there were complaints from the
residents of the area to clear the encroachment on the road.
7. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that since,
the petitioner was claimed of having obtained patta in respect of
plot No.70A vide proceedings, dt.03.04.2003, one N.Kiran,
neighbor of the subject land, made an application under RTI
Act, 2005, to Tahsildar for asserting the title of the said site;
that in response to the aforesaid application, the Tahsildar vide
his letter, dt.31.12.2022, stated that the said proceedings,
under which the petitioner had claimed of having been granted
patta in favour of Enjamuri Janakamma, in fact relates to the
proceedings issued with regard to the caste certificate in favour
of Vaditya Ramesh Naik, S/o Hussain Nayak R/o Padyathanda,
and does not relate to grant of house site patta to Enjamuri
Janakamma.
8. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that since,
Enjamuri Janakamma is not the owner of the land and had
claimed the subject land by way of a fabricated document, she
cannot transfer title to the petitioner herein.
5
9. The 4th respondent by the counter affidavit further
contended that since, no patta has been issued to Enjamuri
Janakamma, the petitioner cannot claim herself to be the owner
of the said land having purchased under an agreement of sale,
and as such, the father of the petitioner, who is available locally
on being asked to remove the illegal construction and vacate
the subject land, had given an undertaking on 08.02.2023, that
he will vacate the subject premises and requested for some
time. However, the respondents on learning that the
petitioner’s father instead of vacating the subject land by
removing the illegal structure is planning to approach the
Court, though had sought time for vacating the same, the staff
of the 4th respondent approached the petitioner on 09.02.2023
and asked them to remove the structure and did not attempt to
demolish the shed as alleged.
10. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the
petitioner, her father, brother and mother, everybody present at
the subject premises threatened the municipal staff not to take
any action and also threatened with self-immolation if any
steps are taken to get the said site vacated and in fact pored
6
petrol on their bodies and threatened the staff of the answering
respondent with dire consequences; that in view of the said acts
and tense situation, the respondent staff called the police to the
site and withdrawn his staff there from and lodged a report with
the 5th respondent, who upon receiving the said
complaint/report, registered a case vide Crime No.27/2023,
dt.10.02.2023, against the petitioner, her brother and parents.
11. By the counter affidavit, the 4th respondent further
contended that the petitioner had approached the Mandal Legal
Services Committee(MLSC), Huzurnagar on 08.02.2023,
complaining that municipal authorities in collusion with the
neighbors of the land, are harassing the petitioner about the
alleged encroachment and requested to take necessary action;
and that the Legal Aid Committee had issued notice to the
authorities and enquired into the matter.
12. By the counter affidavit, it is further stated that in the
enquiry conducted by the MLSC, the Tahsildar, Nereducherla,
who is the 4th respondent therein, has clearly stated that there
was no patta issued vide proceedings dt.03.04.2003 for plot
No.70/A, cancelling the road, the legal services authority had
7
passed a docket order dt.23.02.2023 vide PLC.No.4 of 2023
advising the petitioner to approach the competent Court to seek
redressal of her grievance as per law.
13. By stating as above, the 4th respondent had claimed that
the said respondent’s authorities have followed due process of
the law in taking steps to remove the illegal encroachment, but
it is the petitioner and her family members, who have
threatened the government officials and obstructed the
authorities from discharging their official duties under the
threat of self-immolation and accordingly, sought for dismissal
of the writ petition.
14. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 3rd respondent is filed.
By the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent had contended that
land in survey No.272 of Nereducherla Village, Suryapet
District, belongs to government; that the said land was
distributed as house plots to landless poor; that the revenue
department has issued house site patta certificates to all the
beneficiaries; that the Tahsil Office maintains a distribution
register and each and every document received by the office and
dispatched from the office is recorded in the said register by
8
assigning a serial number; that the serial number assigned to a
particular document will become the file number; and that the
reference number assigned to each house site patta certificate
aligns with the distribution register serial number.
15. By the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent contended
that in the instant case, the petitioner has produced house site
patta certificate bearing No.B/6670/03, dt.03.04.2003; that in
the said number, the alphabet “B” refers to the concerned
Section, which deals with house site pattas, number “6670” is
generated from the distribution register, and number “03” is the
year; and that the Sl.No.6670 of the distribution register was
assigned to a communication relating to issuance of caste
certificate to one Vaditya Ramesh Naik, S/o Hussain Nayak R/o
Padyathanda, and thus, the patta certificate produced by the
petitioner with the aforesaid number is not genuine and borne
out of the register maintained by the Tahsildar-Office.
16. By the counter-affidavit it is further contended that the
house site patta certificate filed by the petitioner along with the
writ petition while mentions the number as “70/A” with
boundaries mentioned as “North:Plot No.70, South:Plot No.79,
9
East:Road, West:Road”, a perusal of the layout of survey No.272
filed by the petitioner does not show existence of any plot
No.70/A in the said layout or there is any sub-division of plots
in the said layout; and on the contrary, the plot No.70 as shown
in the layout is mentioned with boundaries as “North:Plot
No.65, South:Plot No.79, East:Road, West:Plot No.69”.
17. By the counter it is further contended that B.Narayana
Reddy, a retired Tahsildar, who worked as Tahsildar at the
relevant point of time has given letter dt.18.05.2023, stating
that he has not issued house site patta certificate to the
petitioner’s vendor, Enjamuri Janakamma, and the signature
on the certificate does not belong to him and it is a forged
signature and the boundaries were also created, and is a
fabricated document.
18. By the counter affidavit it is further stated that even if the
claim of the petitioner of existence of plot No.70/A is to be
accepted as correct, the said patta should be abutting to the
already existing plot No.70, whereby the boundaries would be
different; that there is no house site bearing No.70/A issued by
the revenue department; that the house site patta certificate
10
brought into existence by the petitioner is a fake, fabricated and
forged document.
19. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that since,
the petitioner’s vendor was not allotted house site, the
petitioner cannot claim ownership or possession based on an
invalid document; and that the petitioner on the basis of the
fake and fabricated document has encroached on to the road in
between plot Nos.70 & 71, and erected a metal sheet room
causing lot of inconvenience and hardship to the residents of
the locality and thus, the said construction made by the
petitioner is a clear encroachment.
20. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that the
claim of the petitioner of she having approached the said
respondent and requesting him to direct the 4th respondent not
to interfere with her peaceful possession and not to demolish
her house, is an incorrect statement as the petitioner did not
approach the 3rd respondent nor give any representation, and
the said allegation has been made only for the sake of present
writ petition.
11
21. The petitioner thereafter filed additional documents by
way of I.A.No.2 of 2023.
22. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
23. Though it is the primary contention of the petitioner that
one Enjamuri Janakamma W/o Eedaiah, having been granted
house site patta vide proceedings No.B/6670/2003,
dt.03.04.2003, in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents
in survey No.272 and the said plot having been sold to the
petitioner under an agreement of sale, dt.19.01.2009, a perusal
of the copy of the patta certificate, on the basis of which, the
petitioner is laying claim to the subject plot as having been sold
to her, would firstly, indicate that the said patta granted cannot
be sold or gifted for a period of ten (10) years without prior
permission from the Revenue Divisional officer, for petitioner to
make a claim of having purchased the same from the original
allottee namely Enjamuri Janakamma, and secondly, at the
bottom of the said patta certificate it has been stated that the
said patta is being given by cancelling the road, but, it is to be
noted that there cannot be a patta for the purpose of formation
of road as the roads, be it in the Grampanchayat or
12
Municipality, would be the property of the concerned
Grampanchayat/ Municipality and does not require any patta
to be granted at the first instance for it to be cancelled and
given in favour of the petitioner’s vendor.
24. Further, the 3rd respondent by the counter affidavit filed
into the Court claimed that the proceedings No.B/6670/2003,
dt.03.04.2003, as reflected in the patta certificate, on the basis
of which, the petitioner is claiming the subject land as having
been allotted to Enjamuri Janakamma and the same being sold
to her under an agreement of sale to her in the year 2009,
relates to a communication issued in respect of Caste
Certificate in favour of one Vaditya Ramesh Naik, S/o Hussain
Nayak R/o Padyathanda and not relates to grant of house patta
in favour of Enjamuri Janakamma, the said issue becomes a
disputed question of fact.
25. Further, the respondents along with the counter affidavit
in support of their contention enclosed the extract of
Dispatch/Distribution Register(DR) in relation to entry No.6670
to claim that the said register does not show the name of the
original allottee, Enjamuri Janakamma. On the other hand, the
13
petitioner contended that the said extract relates to day register
and the extract of the Dispatch Register obtained by him under
RTI Act having entries from Sl.No.1670 to 1725, clearly shows
the name of the original allottee i.e., petitioner’s vendor at
S.No.1702, and thus, the claim of the respondents-authorities
of the patta certificate being relied upon by the petitioner to be
forged and fabricated is a false statement made to deny the
claim of the petitioner over the subject land and is only
intended to dispossess her therefrom. In view of the divergent
stands taken by the parties, this Court perused the record.
26. From a perusal of the copy of the Distribution
Register(DR) obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act as filed
into this Court along with IA.No.2 of 2023, there are seven
columns in all. That the first column is Sr.No. wherein Entry
1702 is mentioned. In the next column which deals with the
nature of application received, the original entry records as ‘ ” ‘
means ‘ditto’ as noted above, which in S.No.1699 is recorded as
‘Arji’ meaning representation, has been over written and
changed to “patta marpu” (means change of patta); that in the
next column of the register the entry made as “ku.dru.pa”(kula
14
druveekarana patram, which means caste certificate) has been
altered to “assigned patta” and the next column relating to the
details of the person making application, the same has been
struck-off and the name of Enjamuri Janakamma has been
entered therein and the in the next column of the said record
concerned section being “F” has been overwritten as “B”.
27. Further, though the petitioner claims of she having
obtained the aforesaid information in response to an
application made under RTC Act, the petitioner did not choose
to file the original of the information obtained by her and
instead had only filed Xerox copies with over-writings, as noted
above.
28. In addition, it is also to be noted that the petitioner is
claiming the subject plot as having been purchased by her
under an agreement of sale executed by the original allottee,
Enjamuri Janakamma. It is to be noted that the said agreement
of sale is executed on a Rs.10/- non-judicial paper and is titled
as “Inti sthala vikraya dastaveju”, which means “house site sale
deed” thereby requiring registration in terms of Section 17 of
the Registration Act, 1908, and also being liable to be subjected
15
to appropriate stamp duty under the Stamp Act,
notwithstanding the fact that the said sale is contrary to the
conditions of the patta, even if the same is considered for a
moment to be a genuine document, on the basis of which claim
is being made to the subject land.
29. Further, it is also to be noted that though the petitioner
claims of her vendor having constructed a small house with
ACC sheet and resided therein till 2009, which has been
mutated on to her name in Grampanchayath records by issuing
Door No.6-51 and she having paid property tax in relation
thereto, which has been purchased by the petitioner herein on
19.01.2009, the copy of the receipt filed along with the writ
petition to claim of the subject room constructed by her with
ACC sheet being assessed to property tax, shows the date of the
receipt as 30.03.2012 and is issued in the name of Enjamuri
Janakamma i.e., the petitioner’s vendor, and it relates to the
year 2011-12, by which time, according to the petitioner
herself, the said Enjamuri Janakamma sold the said property to
the petitioner on 19.01.2009.
16
30. Further, a perusal of the aforesaid receipt would also
show that the said receipt has been issued in relation to
permission fee for construction of a house under “Indiramma
Indlu Scheme” and does not relate to assessment of property
tax in respect of door No.6-51 as claimed by the petitioner in
the present writ petition.
31. It is also pertinent to note that a perusal of the layout
plan of survey No.272 filed by the petitioner would also show
that there is no plot with No.70/A in the said layout for the
petitioner to claim that the said plot having been assigned in
favour of Enjamuri Janakamma by cancelling a road patta,
firstly, and she having sold the same in favour of the petitioner,
subsequently.
32. It is also settled position of law that no right, title or
interest can be claimed on the basis of an agreement of sale or
an unregistered document[Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak
Mahindra Bank 1]
33. All the above facts clearly go to show that the claim of the
petitioner of one Enjamuri Janakamma being granted house
1
2024 SCC Online SC 458
17
site bearing plot No.70/A by issuing a patta initially in the year
2003 and she having sold the same said plot of land in favour
of the petitioner on 19.01.2009 under an agreement of sale,
cannot be accepted as a valid claim, more particularly, in the
light of the statement made by the 3rd respondent by the
counter affidavit filed into the Court that the then Tahsildar, Sri
B.Narayana Reddy, by his letter, dt.18.05.2023, having stated
that he has not issued house site patta certificate to the
petitioner’s vendor, Enjamuri Janakamma and the signature on
the said patta certificate does not belong to him and is a forged
signature.
34. Further, a perusal of the material papers filed by the
petitioner along with the writ petition, on the basis of which it is
being claimed that the petitioner’s vendor having been granted
patta, at page 31, shows that the entry at Sl.No.396 to be an
inserted entry being the last one and is also an incomplete
entry as it only records two boundaries i.e., ‘east & west’ and
does not mention the boundaries on ‘north & sought’ while all
other entries above the said serial number mentions all the four
boundaries.
18
35. Further, the extract at page 31, which is stated to be
extract of register of allotment of patta, shows the entries to be
of the year 2013, while the petitioner claims her vendor having
been granted patta in the year 2003, a decade back, so also the
file number mentioned on the top of the said extract as
“B/10954/2011”, would indicate that the same to be relating to
the year subsequent to the alleged allotment in the year 2003,
which the petitioner claims of having sold to her in the year
2009.
36. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that
the claim of the petitioner to the aforesaid plot of land is neither
borne out from the record nor can be accepted as a valid claim,
and thus, the further the claim of the petitioner of the
respondents-authorities, in particular respondent Nos.4 & 5,
seeking to interfere with the peaceful possession of the
petitioner’s house bearing door No.6-51 situated at
Nereducherla Mandal, cannot be accepted as a valid claim, and
thus, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit.
37. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
19
38. Further, as the claim of the petitioner to the subject land,
as detailed above, is by way of an encroachment on to the road
of the layout, the petitioner is to be declared as an encroacher.
In view of the settled position of law as enunciated in Lallu
Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors 2 and
Meghamala v/s. G.Narasimha Reddy 3 that even for eviction
of an encroacher, due process of law is to be followed, this
Court is of the further view that the respondents-authorities are
to be directed to follow due process of law while removing the
encroachment made by the petitioner on to the road in the
subject layout.
39. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
23rd July, 2025
gra
2
1968 AIR 620
3
(2010) 8 SCC 383