The High Court · 2025

5. The Municipality, Amangal, Ranga Reddy District Repd. by its Commissioner. 0 lt4l... fq(ylg Property Developers, a Partnership Firm having its office at H.No. l299H, Road No.6B, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033,Represented by its Partner Mr. P. Ramesh, S/o. Late P.'Hanumantha Rao, Ag'ed about 56 years, R/o. Flat No.905, Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081.

7. Mls. Fortune Estate. D-e,velopers, a Partnership Firm having its office at H.No.1299H, Road No.68, Jubilee Hiils, Hyderabad - S00 033: Represented by its Partner Mr. i. !9pegh, S/o. Late P.-Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o. flat No.905, Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081. 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 ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the aetion of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering into the agriculture land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.1 .22 Gts in Survey No. 31/AA/1t2 and land to an extent of Ac.1.27 Gts in Sy.No.31/A111, totaling to an extent of Ac.3.09 Gts, which is situated at Amangal village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and trying to disposes the Petitioner and also trying to lay the Park in the land of the Petitioner without having any right, tifle and jurisdiction and creating panic situation by colluding with the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of agriculture land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.09 Gts, which is situated at Amangal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and cancel the illegal layout permission of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 through vide Permit No.TLP 54l201BlH'which is granted on the land of the Petitioner by deleting Petitioner's land in layout as earmarked as a public park and plots. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 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 Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of agriculture land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.09 Gts, which is situated at Amangal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and cancel the illegal layout permission of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 through vide Permit No.TLP 54120181H which is granted on the land of the Petitioner by deleting Petitioner's land in layout as earmarked as a public park and plots pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 2 & 4: ASST. GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsbl for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 & 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.1334 OF 2025 ORALORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l, 2 & 4 and Mr. Krishna Reddy Puna, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agriculture land admeasuring Acs.l.22 guntas in Survey No.3 I lANll2 and Acs. 1.27 guntas in Survey No.31/A1l1, making a total extent of Acs.3.09 guntas, situated at Amangal Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.52 of 2023, dated

01.11.2022. His name was also mutated in. revenue records and latest pattadar passbook-cum-title deed was also issued in his favour. On his request, survey was conducted on 03.07.2024, panchanama was drawn and location sketch was also issued, but boundaries were not fixed. Therefore, he filed a writ petition vide W .P. No.24253 of 2024 challenging the said action. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, this Court 2 KI-.J W.P No.l3.l4 of2025 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Rangareddy District, to consider the F_Line application dated 17.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner requesting him to fix boundaries in the subject land pursuant to the letter dated

03.07.2024 within forty five (45) days. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, fixed the boundaries in compliance with the aforesaid order. The petitioner is in possession of the subject property. Even then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to the site on 02.0t.2025, 05.01.2025 and 0g.01.2025 and tried to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property at the instance of respondent Nos.6 and 7 without following due procedure laid down under law.

3. Whereas, leamed Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, and,4 and leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.5, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.4 and 5 never interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property as alleged in the writ affidavit. Hor.vever, respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot deal with the inter se disputes between the 7 \ To, KT-.J w P hno lll4 of20:5 petitioner and respondent No.6. If the petitioner has any grievance against respondent No.6, he has to approach Civil Court.

4. In the light of the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject properfy without following due procedure laid down under law and not to interfere with the inter se disputes between the pctitioner and respondent No.6 in respect of the subject property. In the circumsLances ofthe case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd,- T. TIRUMALA DEVI T REGIST RAR ASSIS FFICER I I I Hyiierabad. '*",,',*'#jf i^f,",ibTgi,lg':i"f3,:ftq#l'$S::Jl,i:iJ'J'?fi ' *;"f,:Ififfif,lB5, 'y,:l[f^i 3.TheDistrictCollector,RangaReddy'RangaReddyDistrict' 4. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning' Ranga Reddy and Urban Deveropment ,i,oJ:[3:f:." l':B:*&l):il: District, Telangana. 5,TheCommissioner,Municipality,Amangal,RangaReddyDistrict. 6. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR' Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration. and Urban Development' High ' ciJrt"to'r. ili" state-of reiJngana at Hyderabad [OUT] g. Two ccs to GP for Revenue, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA' S'C' for Municipalities [OPUCI 10.Two CD CoPies MP q .I /f HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 TL1 t f o o 2g JIN 2t?5 , a , t t c RDER WP.No.1334 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cg.,e.w