1. Smt.M.Padmavathi. Wo. Sri. M.V.V. Krishna Choudary v. I The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 o't 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with our peaceful possession and enjoyment including construction activity in respect of Plot bearing no. 47, 48 and 4BlA in survey no.41111, admeasuring 850 sq. yards situated at Mata Bhuvaneswari Colony, Khanamet Village, under GHMC Circle, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300- A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with our possession and enjoyment including construction activity in respect of Plot bearing nos- 47,48 and 4BlA in survey no.41l1 1, admeasuring 850 sq. yards situated at lVlata Bhuvaneswari Colony, Khanamet Village, under GHMC Circle, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. lA 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 herein not to interfere with our possession and enjoyment including construction activity in respect of Plot bearing no. 47 , 48 and 4BlA in survey no.41l1 1 , admeasuring 850 sq. yards situated at Mata Bhuvaneswari Colony, Khanamet Village, under GHMC Circle, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana fo(hwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondent No.2&3:SRl RAPARATHMNKATESH,SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondent No.4&5 : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.l167 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.S.Sridhar, iearned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. Petitioner No.1 is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing Nos.47, 48 and 48/A in Sy.No.41/ 1 1, admeasuring 850 square yards, situated at Mata Bhuvaneswari Colony, Khanamet Village, under GHMC on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.13743 of 2019, dated 12.O7.2O19 in respect of the part of the subject property i.e., plot No.48lA in Sy.No.41l 1 1, admeasuring 4OO square yards. The petitioners have submitted an application on O8.O7.2024 to respondent No.2 seeking permission for construction of residential building consisting I stilt + 4 upper floors. The respondent 1 Corporation insisted for 'no objection certificate'. Therefore, they have filed writ petition vide W.P.No.439 of 2025. Vide order dated 07.O1.2O25, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to consider the said application. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have submitted 'no objection certificate' to the respondent authorities.

3. The petitioners started levelling the subject property on

08.O1.2025. The respondents visited the subject property and directed the petitioners to stop levelling work. They took away the material from the work place. The said action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under law. Challenging the said action of respondent Nos.3 to 5, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 never visited the subject property and never tried to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property as alleged in the writ affidvait. / I ! .,)

5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of respondent No.4 stating that as per Wasool Baqui, the old Sy.No.SS corresponding to New Sy.No.41 admeasuring Ac.252.24 gts., is classified as Poramboke and as per Sethwar the land in Sy.No.41 admeasuring Ac.252.24 gts., is classified as Poramboke and belongs to Government. In the year 1962 land in Sy.No.4l is for an extent of Ac.47.OO gts., assigned to thirteen (13) persons and later, an extent of Ac.25.11 gts., has been assigned to live (5) persons. The petitioners are trying to grab the Government property basing on the fictitious documents. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition in the said course of action. The said written instructions are placed on record.

6. As stated supra, tL..e petitioners are claiming right over the subject property basing on the above said two registered documents. Respondent No.4 contending that the subject property is a Government land and it is mentioned in prohibitory list in terms of the Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. The said submission made by respondent No'4 is I I I 1 factually incorrect. The Sub_Registrar has entertained the above said two registered documents i.e., sale deed, dated 12.O7.2O19 and gifr deed, dated 31. I2.2Olg. Therefore, respondent No.4 now can,t contend that the subject propertSr is in prohibitory list. If the subject property is a Government land, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have to take steps against the petitioners, in accordance with law_ 7 . In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.4 and S not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, without following the due process of law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Assr,s,rdr?-JiffiY'IXA / FEcTtoN OFFtcER To, t \ I3BI[,]3"1,:'.T''J""1? YT cipa, Administration z s";;;iffi i:ilil'illUrban DeveloPment ;ater Hyderabad Municipal corporation (GHMC),

2. The commissioner, o r,=''nnun'' I ankbund, Hyderabad t&,-"4:"1':?,li3i',ltiilifi :,:r:tH:X;Sfl

4. The Tahasildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Revenue lnspector, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. One CC to SRt S.SR|DHAR, Advocate. tOpUCj "".fi,'e-2.seririnsampa,yZone, Telangana. [OUTI 7 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of 8. One CC to SRI RAPARATHI VENKATESH' SC FOR GHMC IOPUCI s Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT] /

10.Two CD Copies' BSK BS I I HIGH COURT r DATED:2410112025 \ / //. o r\:! \ ORDER WP.No.1167 of 2025 Ct ,,,'N \ .g ..$s .(I /rctH l j DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a( \