High Court · 2025

5. Choileti Srinath, S/o

6. thofleti Sujatha, D/o isffi:53:ff "'i,,"li#Efi lHl::,,L?l3liiafl,g?1,?,'R:i; 'f I#3Hffi #.",",i5ffi.i[Li*il#,]:r#t'*,xt",,t.ti"J,.,i?,,3,i!; i"[B?,8,.p,.,??; 8 thoileti pavani, D/o :'f,T,i1,,"4"J'"'1i,,#nfi ['iiX?';if :S#:?T,fl.,,1#,?i,.p,,?i;

9. Cholleti Srivathsava, S Iffi ?5;f ii:,i;*#,fi ,lii ji,,ijB"!1|?, jr,.::iriih$%f rX',".*?."i,;f, l?"pBfu ,.il; l0.Cholleti Sridhar, S/o L - rEILl"s;,".? H'li'h,73,."i1'3 r%8fl;i::3"3',fi:'"r',1, t:lfiiil'r:? il?!,,,.i",; 1 1 . Chotleti Srinath, Sio L rEji"e'iil";"hiJ'h,73,JrxE'?iiff ll:?,1?:9"3f,:,"ffi [:1fii""rr?il?1,,,.i.t "8ff li",'f :ai??,,,,J;":fit:[Tj,5ft #ff ,ft liH,^?8J,:6fi,,3,:?"li?!:?:*

13. Bachu Venugopral, S/o Bachu Ratnamma, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Private Business, Fl/o Huzurabad Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana.

14.Bachu Mahesh, S/o Bachu Ralnamma, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Huzurabad Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana ....,PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Karimnagar. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 5. The Tahsildar, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 7. The Station House Officer, Huzurabad Police Station, Karimnagar District. 8. The Government Junior College, Huzurabad, Rep. by its Principal .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 7 in not demolishing the illegal construction of compound wall constructed by the Bth respondent obstructing the free pathway in Sy.No.128 inspite of judgement and decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad in OS No.,l 114t1991 dt.08-04-20'19 is illegar, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and further declare the action of the 8th respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property in plot No.2 admeasuring 3622 sq. yards in Sy.No.125, situated at Huzurabad Village and Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar District is also illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to demolish the compound wall constructed by the Bth respondent obstructing the free pathway in Sy.No.12g with the police protection of respondents 6 and 7 and further direct the / respondent No.B not to interfere with the peacefur possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property in plot No.2 admeasuring 3622 sq. yards in Sy.No.125, situated at Huzurabad Viilage and Revenue Mandar, Karimnagar District in the interest of justice. l.A.NO:1 oF 2025 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to demorish the compound wa, constructed by the Bth respondent obstructing the free pathway in sy.No.12g with the porice protection of respondents 6 and 7 in the interest of justice, pending disposar of the main writ petition. l.A.NO: 20 F 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No.g not to interfere with the peacefur possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property in respect of prot No.2 admeasuring 3622 sq yards in sy.No. r25, situated at Huzurabad viflage and Revenue Mandar, Karimnagar District in the interest of justice, pending disposar of the main writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI y.BALA MURALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 6 & 7 : AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.g : AGp FOR EOUCATION The Court made the following ORDER I , I I i (' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1018 of2025 ORDER: This Writ Pt:tition, under Article 226 of the Constitt.ttion of India, is Iiled seeking the following relief: ".-..to issue u;it, order or direction especially one in the Nature of Wit of Mandantus declaing the action of the respondent lvos- -:i ro 7 in not demot.ishing the illegal conslntction of compound u-nll constnrcted bg the Stn respondent obstntcting the free pathuall in Sy.No.128 in s{'ite of iudgment and decree passed by the PincipaL Junior Ciuit Judge at Huztrabad in OS No.1114/ 1991 dt 08.04.2019 is itlegal, arbitrory, uniust, unreasonable and against tLrc principles of natural justice and further declare the octiort of the 8th respottd.ent in interfeing u.tith the peaceful possession o.nd enjoAment of the petitioners propertA in plot No-2 admeasuring 3622 sq garcis in Sy.No.125 situoted at Huzurabad Vil[age o.nd Reuenue Man.da| Koimnagar District is also illegal, arbitr(:ry, unjust, unreascnable and against the pinciples of natural jusltce and consequenr.lg direct the respondent Nos. I to 5 to demolish lhe compound uta.ll constntcted bg the 8th respondent obstrttcting the free pathtaag in Sy.No.128 with the police protection of respondent Nos.6 ond 7 ond furtller direct the respondent No.8 not to interJbre utth the peace'fiil possession and enjoyment of the petitioners propertA in plol No.2 admeasuing 3622 sq gards in 59.No..125 situated at Huzurabad Village and Reuenue Mandal, Kaimnagar Distict in the interest of justice... . "

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is statec. that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of plot No.2 admeasuring 3622 sq. yards ln Sy.No.125 and ,elso various extents of lands situat(3d at 2 Huzurabad Village and Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is further stated that the Education Department has constructed Basic Training School Buildings and Hostels at Huzurabad in the lands allotted by the Government ald the sarne were halded over to respondent No.8. It is also stated that in the year 1991, when the Principal of respondent No.8 constructed compound wal1 obstructing free pathway tn Sy.No. 128, the grandfather and brothers of the petitioners instituted a suit in O.S.No. 1114 of 1991 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad seeking declaration and permanent injunction ald the said suit was decreed by order dated 08.O4.2019 restraining the defendants therein (respondents herein) from causing any obstructions by way of making constructions over the suit pathway blocking the free passage of the plaintiffs throughouL the suit pathway ald further directed the defendants therein (respondents herein) to remove the portion of the wall obstructing the pathway within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. It is further stated that no action has been taken by the respondent-authorities for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 08.O4.2019 in O.S.No.1114 of 1991 passed 3 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad for rernoval of the illegal compound wall constructed by respondent No.g.

4. Learned cou nsel for the petitioners has submitted that aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 0g.04.2019 tn O.S.No.1174 of 1991, the defendants therein (responctents herein) have filecl A.S.No.79O of 2Ol9 on the fi]e ol. the Principal District. Judge, Karimnagar and no interim orders are granted by the said Court in favour of the responclents herein and the sarne is pending for adjudication. It is fur.ther submitted that even though the petitioners have submitted several complaints before the respondent_authorities for implementation of judgment and decree dated 08.04.2O19 in O.S.No. 1 1 14 of 199 1, til1 date no action has been taken on the said complaints; ald in active collusion with the respondent_ authorities, respondent No.8 is not allowing the petitioners to use the pathway.

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the r.espondents would submit that instead of availing the remedy by hling an execution petition under Order XXI of CPC, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitron. 4 It is further submitted that since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the competent civil Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. In view of the above submissions, since the petitioners have an a-lternative remedy of filing execution petition before the competent civil Court, this writ petition is dismissed with a lllerty to file an execution petition before the concerned Court for implementation of judgment and decree dated O8.O4.2019 in O.S.No.1114 of 1991. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI T REGISTRAR ASSI ,l\gECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI Y.BALA MURALI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies SA BS 0 :l HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER WP.No.1018 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. .. rI G") 1 Y\L s,r^ re: ( 0 L) 2I J\$l ?025 9 a I I-J,js l.. .\T r: t e-O