Seni Swamy v. The State Of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directron, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the respondent nos.4 and 5, in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his house plot adm. 484 sq. yards (Ac. 0- 04 guntas) sq. yards forming part of Sy. No. 860iE situated at Nennel village and gram panchayat, Mancherial District without any issuing notice or opportunity and without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossessi inte ri re with the rights of petitioner in respect of his above said house. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess/interfere with the r ghts of petitioner in respect of his house plot adm. 484 sq. yards (Ac. 0- 04 gun.i s) sq. yards forming part of Sy. No. 860/E situated at Nennel village and gram p: nchayat, Mancherial District without following due procedure pending dispos;l of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : ASST. GP FOR RE! ENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI K.PRADEEP RE )DY, SC FOR GP The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYAI{A ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.1 37 of2o23 ORDER: This writ petition is frled to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his house plot admeasuring 484 Square Yards (Ac.0.04 guntas) forming part of Sy.No.860/E, situated at Nennel Village and Gram Panchayat, Mancherial District, without issuing any notice and without fottowing due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 3O0 A of the Constirurion of India.

2. Heard Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri p.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.S and 6.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house Plot admeasuring 484 square yards (Ac.0.04 guntas) forming part of Sy.No.86O/8, situated at Nennel Village and Gram Panchayat, Mancherial District (for short 'subject plot'), having purchased the same through registered sale deed vide Document No.427512O17 dated 15.05.2017 from its original owner; and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.MN/NE/5612017-21, dated 2t.06.20 17 and E-parredar Pass book cum title deeds were also issued to the petitioner. He further 2 submits that the petitioner made application before the . e respondent for conversion of the subject plot from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose; and that the 4th respondent after due verif;< ation of records accorded permission for conversion of subject plot fr,; n agricultural to non-agricultural vide Proceedings No.21O1135164, <l Lred 16.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner made online application c ated I l.lO.2O22 seeking permission for construction of residential buikl ng in the subject plot, however, the said application neither approved nor -ejected. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit ,. rat as per Section 114(3) of The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 201S, if the Gram panchayat does not take a decision on th. application within :ifteen days, it is deemed to be approved if all valid documents are subrr Ltted to the Gran-r Panchayat concerned, in the manner prescribed; ar:r that in view of deemed approval, the petitioner commenced constructi rn and completed the same.

5. [,earned counsel for the petitioner would subl it that w,hcn an objection with regard to the said construction '*.zu raised, the 5rh respondent sought clarification from the 4h responden vide letter da[ed

22.02.2022; and that the 4h respondent aJter co:r lucting thorough enquiry addressed letter dated 24.O2.2O22 to the 5ft r :spondent stating that the subject plot in Survey No.860 is a private pattr land and that the same does not lorm part o[ ceiling land or laoni pat a or Government land. 3 6' l.earned counsel for petitioner would submit that while the matter stood thus, the oflicials of respondent Nos.4 and S on a complaint purported to have been given by the villagers came to the petitioner,s subject plot and directed the petitioner to vacate the said plot, without any notice and without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 7 ' Learned counsel for the petitioner wourd further submit that right to property is a constitutiona-l right protected under Article 30o_A of the constitution of India; that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject plot having purchased the same through registered sale deed; and that the respondents without issuing any notice and without following due process of law are interfering wittr the possession of the petitioner over the subject plot despite retter dated 24.o2.2o22 addressed by rhe 4tr' respondent by which it is clear t].at the subject plot is a private patta rand and does not form part of ceiling land or laoni patta or Government [and. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition. 8 ['earned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and rearned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.s and 6 would submit that the respondents will folow due process of law in case the subject plot forms part of the Government land or the subject construction found to be raised without any permission. t l 4 g. considering the submissions made by the learnerl counsel for the petitioner as rvell as learned Assistant Government Ple,r ler for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Norl 5 and 6, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed not to interfere wilL the possession of the petitioner over the subject plot, except in acccr lance with law' However, if it is found that the construction raised by he petitioner on the subject plot is itlegal or unauthorized, the resl>' 'ndents are not precluded frotn taking action by duly followinp the procedure contemplated under law.

10. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition rS disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if ac 7, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. To, /ffRUE COPY// , StrDIli' UEWEHAR REDDY ASSrS\ANT REGTSJRATT , ,' _ ---- Sqcnoru oFFrcER \ Telangana State, Hyderabad, T. S.

1. The Principal Secretary to Govt. , Revenue Departmeht, jecretariat, 2. The Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bellampally, Mancherizrl District. 4. The Tahasildar, Nennel mandal, Mancherial District. 5. The Mandal Panchayat Officer, Nennel, Mancherial Disir ct. 6. The Executive Officer the Panchayat Secretary, Nennel )ram Panchayat, 7. One CC to SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate. [OPU{) 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stal : of Telangana. 9. One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS [r )PUC] 10.Two CD Copies. Nennel, Mancherial District. IOUI BSK BS ^lT HIGH COURT DATED:2 410912025 I S.'A co ?? AN 2[26 v * 1jr: ORDER WP.No.137 o12023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ('\1 , ,{r N\,u