Telangana HC Protects Farmer From Eviction in Pedda Amberpet Where Traffic PS was Proposed
Court says any eviction must follow due process and await decision on farmer's pending Bhu Bharathi e-passbook application.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has restrained state authorities from dispossessing a farmer from his agricultural land at Pedda Amberpet on the outskirts of Hyderabad, directing that eviction, if any, be carried out only in accordance with law and after deciding his pending application for an e-passbook under the Bhu Bharathi system.
Justice G.M. Mohiuddin passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Pittala Mutyalu, who claimed continuous possession and cultivation of Ac.1-20 guntas of assigned land in Survey No 244/104 of Pedda Amberpet village, Abdullapurmet mandal, Ranga Reddy district, since 1980.
The petitioner submitted that despite long-standing possession and his name being reflected in earlier revenue records, he had not been issued an e-passbook. He said he had filed an online application on January 23, 2026, and in an earlier writ petition, the court on February 10 had directed authorities to consider it within 60 days.
He alleged that authorities failed to comply with the order and instead tried to dispossess him for construction of a traffic police station at Abdullapurmet, without notice, compensation or due procedure.
Opposing the plea, the revenue department stated that the land in Survey No. 244 was classified as government land (Gairan Sarkari) in 1955-58 records. It submitted that assigned lands measuring Ac.39-36 guntas in the survey number were resumed in 2010 due to violations of assignment conditions.
The court noted that the 2010 resumption proceedings had not been disclosed in earlier litigation, including the previous writ petition on the e-passbook application. Government counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s name did not figure in current revenue records and clarified that land identified for the proposed traffic police station falls in Survey No. 244/105, not in Survey No. 244/104 claimed by the petitioner.
After hearing both sides, the court directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except by due process of law. It held that any proposal for resumption or acquisition, even for a public purpose, must follow statutory procedure and can be taken up only after a final decision on the petitioner’s pending Bhu Bharathi application in compliance with its earlier order.
