1. P.Narayana Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 21-09-2013 passed in WPMP No.20012O13 in W.P.No.150/2013, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: 1 lV.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4- 1 /2/A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 2 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 3 M.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 4 Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, No. 1 -4-1 l$lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 5 Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. AND 1 P.Narayana Rao, S/o. P.Narsoji Rao, Aged about 78 Years, Occ Retired Service, ...PETITIONERS 4 2 Dr. N Mad hava Rao, S/o. Retired Service, Late N.Kishanji Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ 3 Dr. Uma lt4aheshwari, W/o Dr. N.lrladhava Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ Employee, All are R/o. H.No.1-4-2717218, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. 4. The Government of Andhra _Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, (On behalf of NOC Committee)

5. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad.

6. The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Vacate the lnterim Order granted in WP.MP. No. 200 of 2013 in Wp.No.150 of 20'l 3 dated 21 .O9.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKART Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDy, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 8: SRI D.SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION NO: 9240 OF 2015 Between: 1 Qr N. lVladhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ 2. N.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. N. lr/adhav Rao, Aged about 27 years, Occ Student, Docto r, R/o. H.No. 1 2- 4 -27 t7 21 28, Kav adigida, Hyd eia bad. R/o. H. No. 1 2-4 -27 17 2128. Kavad iguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangan.a,. Rqp Oy the Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad - SOO 022.

2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, llyderabad-SO0 001. 3. The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad -500 o20.

4. The Tahasildar, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad - S00

007. 5

5. [\tl.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/0. 1-4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

6. M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

7. lV.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. B. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, R/o. 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 9. Shareefa bea, W/o. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. Respondent Nos.S to 9 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.1/2018. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in the subject land and being treated as Government land and they have instructions to distribute the same to landless poor as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (iXg), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the respondents not to take any steps to deal with plot Numbers 7 and 145 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards and 180 Sq. Yards respectively situated at Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 12172 OF 2015) 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 Stay all further proceedings including the dispossession of the petitioners from Plot Numbers 7 and 145 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards and 180 Sq. Yards respectively situated at Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRIVIJAY B.PAROPAKARI 6 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SR! CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9: SRI D.SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION NO: 20394 OF 2016 Between:

1. Qr N. Madhav Rao, S/o tate N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ 2. Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o N. Madhav Rao, Aged about 2T years, Occ Student, Doctor, Both are R/o H.No.1-4-27172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONERS AND 1 2 4 E 6 7 .R I The State .of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, for Revenue, I elangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. The Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban land Ceiling, Nampally, Road, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar/lVRO, Secunderabad tVlandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State. M.Biks_hapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 ye3rs, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aqed about 50 years, Occ: Labour, Rlo. 1-4-1t2tA, Bholakilur, Secunderabad.- M.Anand, Sfo. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, Rto. 1-4_1t2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ab_out 42 years. Occ: Building Worker, - ' FJo.1-4-1/81c. Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti. Bholakpur, Secunder5bad. Shareefa bea, W/o. Haroon. Rasheed, aged about 5,2 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. Res-ponde_nt_ Nos.s to 9 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.1/2018. ...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 a writ, order or any other appropriate directions in the nature of writ of certiorari and after caling for the records connected to the impugned notices dated ---06-2016 quash the same as being iilegar, and inoperative. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 25015 OF 2016 ) 7 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 suspend the operation of the impugned notices dated _-06-2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.S to 9: SRI D.SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION NO: 36489 OF 2016 Between:

1. Dr.N.Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N.Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ Doctor,

2. Dr.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri.N.Madhav Rao, Aged about 27 years, Occ Student, Both are R/o.H.No.1-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat, at Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

3. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally Road, Hyderabad.

4. The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad [Vlandal, Hyderabad District -TS ...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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dt.'t9-10-2016 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles '14, 8 19(1Xg), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequenily direct the 4th Respondent not to give effect to the impugned proceecings dt.1g-10-2016 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:44946 0F 2016) 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 4th Respondent not to give effect to the impugned proceedings dt.19-10-2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHALAPATHT RAO, Gp FOR ASSTGNMENT WRIT PETITION NO: 18652 0F 2018 Between:

1. Dr. N.Madhav Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged 60 years, Occ. Doctor, 2. Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o Sri N. Madhav Rao, aged 2t yearc, Occ. Student, Both are R/o H.No.1-4-27172128, padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State.of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. a\) 4 6 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Bikshapathi,. S/o Narasimha, aged major, Ryo Huts in padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. Venkatesh, S/o Late Ellaiah, aged 47 yearc, Occ. Centring Contractor, R/o Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. Shareefa B_e9, Wo not known . to the petitioners, aged 60 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpui, Hiderabad'. ...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 a writ or writs, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the respondent, more particularly the action of the llrd respondent in not 9 extending police protection to the petitioners for the construction of a'structure involving stilt + 4 floors over premises No.1-4-27172t7,8 and 145, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad although permission is already accorded by the respondent No.4 vide construction permission No.59633l01l01l2016lHO dated 16-04-2018 and Permit No.53461 IHOICZICIR-09/2016 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 1g (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to extend police protecti<ln to petitioners for construction of a structure involving stilt + 4 floors over premises No.1-4-2717217,8 and 145, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondent No.3 to initiate steps u/s 107 Cr.P.C., pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: 1 tvl.Bikshapathi, S/o Narasimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o 1-4- 1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 2 Venkatesh, S/o Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ. Building Worker, R/o 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi Pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 3 Shareefa Bee, W/o Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ. Employee Pvt., R/o Bholakpur, Secunderabad. ..PETITIONERS AND 1 Dr. N.Madhav Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged 68 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o H.No.1 -4-27 172128, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o Sri N. tMadhav Rao, aged 30 years, Occ. Student, R/o H.No.1 -4-27 172128, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 5. The Station House Officer, P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS t0 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ther circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim Ordergranted in l.A. No. 1 of 2018 in \A/P No. 18652 of 2018 dated 07.06.2018, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIVIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6: SRI D.SRINIVAS N NO: Between

1. Dr. N. lVladhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged 66 years, occupation, Doctor,

2. Dr. vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri. N. Madhav Rao, Aged 27 years, occupation. Student, Both are R/o. H.No. 1-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. AND 1 The state of rela.ngana, Rep. by its Principal s.,3cretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 3. The Tahsildar/l/andal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad tV{andal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State. ...PETITIONERS

4. tYt Pi!,..-lgpathi, s/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, occ: Labour, RJo. 1 -4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. $.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: t-abour, R/o Bholakpu r, Secunderabad. 5 1-4-1t2tA,

6. M.Anand, S/o. Narsim.ha,.aged about 52 years, occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4-1l2tA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

7. venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ab_out 42 years, occ: Building worker, R/o. 1 -4-1 /8/c, Rangareddi pumpu- Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderibao. 8. Qharqeta bea, w/o. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, occ: Employee Responde-nt- Nos.4 to Srare impleaded as per c.o. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.3/2018. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnciia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a Writ or Writs order or direction more particularly"a Writ of ltlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particulaily the action of the respondent no.3 in seeking to prevent the petitioner from proceeding with the construction on the ground that until and unless the writs covered by W.P.No.15012013, 924012015, 20394116 and 1865212018 are disposed of is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g),:21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent no.3 from preventing the petitioner from proceeding with construction plot no's.7, 8 and 145, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 more particularly the respondent no.3 not to interfere with the construction on the plots bearing no's 7, 8 and 145 situated at Padmashali, Colony, Kavadiguda, Secundrabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: 1 M.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, Fl/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 2 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 3 NI.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, Rl/o. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 4 Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, R/o. 1-4-1l\lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 5 Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. AND 1 Dr. N. Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishna Retired Service, R/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Hyderabad. ji Rao, Aged 68 years, Occupation Padma Shari Colony, Kavadiguda, ...PETITIONERS t2 2 N.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Dr. Sri. N.Madhav Rao, Aqed 30 vears. Occuoation. Student, Rl/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Padma Shdri Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 5. The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State. Petition under Section 15'l .CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim Orders granted in WP No. 23169 of 2018 dated 06.07.201g, pending disposal of the writ petition. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 4 OF 2018 Between: 1 The State of Telangana,. Rep. by its principal Secretary for Revenue. Telangana Secretariat, Hyderakiad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Slation Road, Hyderabad 3 The Tahsildar/Mandal .Revenue Officer, Secunderatrad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 1) 4 6 o 7 Dr. N. Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaii Rao, Aqed 66 vears. Occuoation Doctor. R/o. H.No.1 -4-27 17 2/28, Kavad iguila, Hyderi bad.' Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri. N. Madhav Rao, Aqed 27 vears. Occuoation Student. R/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Kavadiguda, Hyd6rabad. M.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, _aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A. Bholakpur, Secunderaba-d. V..n.ryi, S/o_ Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1t2tA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. M..Anand, S/o. Narsimha,. aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, Rto. 1-4-1t2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ahgut 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, '- ' FJo.1-4-1l1lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderdbad. Shareefa !ea, Wo. Haroon.Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., R/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS l3 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 vacate the interim orders dated 06-07-2018 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No 23169 of 2018 and dismiss the writ petition, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 8: SRI D.SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION NO: 30511 OF 2018 Between:

1. Dr. N. tMadhava Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged about 65 years, Occ. Doctor,

2. Sri N. Vamsi Krishna, S/o Dr. N. tMadhava Rao, aged about 30 years, Occ. Student, Both are Rl/o H.No.1 2-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. ..PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar/tr/andal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. Bikshapathi, S/o Narsimha, Aged 62 years, Occ. Labour, R/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. [\I.Ravi, S/o Narsimha, Aged 50 years, Occ. Labour, Rl/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. N/. Anand, S/o Narsimha, aged 52 years, Occ. Labour, R/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

9. Venkatesh, S/o late Ellaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ. Centring Contractor. l0.Shareefa Bee, Wo not known to petitioners, aged 60 years, Occ. Employee, I & 10 are R/o. Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t4 ..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 an appropriate writ, order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of \l/rit of Mandamus declaring that all the proceedings giving rise to appeal No.HYD/2111987 from the proceedings under Section B (4) to 10 (O) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act as null and void and in operative and not binding and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith drop all the proceedings from Section 8 (a) to 10 (6) of the Urban Land Ceiting Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.5 from interfering with the petitioner's construction over Plot No.7. 8 and 145 forming part of Sy.Nos.4O,41 and 42 admeasuring approximately 500 sq. yards covered by premises No.1.4-2717217, 1-4-2Tl72tg and 1-4-271721145, situated at Padmashali Colony, Kervadiguda, Hyderabad. pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHALAPATHI RAo, Gp FoR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.lSO of 2O13, 924O of 2O15, 2O394 and 36489 of 2O16 and 18652,23169 and 3O511 of 2O18 Dated: O1.12.2O25 Between P. Narayana Rao and others. And PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District and others. COMMON ORDER: ...RESPONDENTS Since all these writ petitions relate to a cornmon property and connected with Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings in Appeal No.Hyd/21!L987, they petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. WP.No.30511 of 2018 is a comprehensive writ petition filed challenging the urban Iand ceiling proceedings issued under Sections 8(4) and 8(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Lg76 (for short'ULC Act') in Appea! No.Hyd/2L1L987 dated

19.02.2003.

3. WP.No.150 of 2013 is filed challenging the Endorsement No.E111114/2OL2 dated 22.03.2OL2 issued by the Joint Collector, a 2 Hyderabad, on behalf of Noc committee, in rejecting the request of the petitioners for issuance of Noc for approval of building plan for construction in land bearing Municipat Nos.1-4-27/72/1, L-4- 27/72/8 and r-4-27/72/L4s, padmashali colony, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

4. wP.No.924o of 2oLs is filed to declare ther action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal and respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, in treating the subject land as Government land and trying to distribute the land to landless poor as being violative of Articles L4, lg(lxg) anrJ 300_4 of the Constitutir>n of India.

5. WP.Nos.2O3g4 and 364g9 of 2OL6 are filed r:hallenging the notices dated Nit.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 respectively whereby the petitioners were informed that the subject land in their possession has been determined as surplus and the same has been taken over by the Government under section 10(6) of the uLC Act and requested the petitioners to file an application under G.o.Ms.No.g2 Revenue (uLC) Department dated 26.os.2oL6 for regularization of surplus land in their possession.

6. wp.No.23169 of 201g is fired chailenging the action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsirdar, Secunderabad Mandar,, in seeking to J prevent the petitioners from proceeding with construction in respect of the subject propefty.

7. WP.No.18562 of 2018 is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, in not extending police protection to the petitioners for construction of building in the subject propefty.

8. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP.No.30511 of 2018, are set out hereunder: (a) The wife of the petitioner No.1 purchased the subject propefty, i.e. Plot No.8, admeasuring 166.66 sq. yards in the name of her minor daughter, N. Vasundara, under a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1996 bearing Document No.1550/1996. After obtaining permission from the respondent No.2, the wife of the petitioner No.1 constructed a building comprising of G+1 in which they are running a 10 bedded Nursing Home under the name and style "Vasundara Nursing Home". Later, the petitioner No.1, his wife and daughter purchased Plot No.7 in the name of Sri. P. Narayan Rao under a registered sale deed dated Ni1.03.2003 bearing Document No.7012003. Similarly, Sri. Narayan Rao and petitioner No.1 purchased an extent of 240 sq. yards covered by Plot No.145, partly in the name of Sri. Narayan Rao and partly in their name. 4 All these three plots are in compact block wherein the Nursing Home is constructed and being run by the petitioners. (b) It is stated that the land admeasuring Ac.6.09 guntas in Sy.Nos.40, 41 and 42, of Padmashali Co.lony, Kavadiguda, Hyderbad, was originally classified as Inam land. Basing on the application made by the Padmashali Co-operative llousing Society Limited (for short 'the Society') under Section B read with Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1965, Occupancy Right Certificate was granted by the Rerrenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Western Division in File No.All1281L976 dated

03.12. 1977. Thereafter, mutation of the subjecl: property was effected by the Thasildar, Secunderabad in File No.F1lLl86LlL977 dated 30.12.t977. The Society applied to the then Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for approval and sanction of layout covering the entire extent of Ac.6.09 guntas. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Town Planning Section) in his Proceedings dated 31.05. L977 addressed to the President of Society, asked to demarcate the roads, plots anrl boundaries in accordance with the revised and corrected lalrqul' The then Government of Andhra Pradesh in accordance wittt G.OMs.No.836 Municipal Administration dated 07.LO.Lg7B favourably considered the request of the Society to relax the rules under the MCH layout Rules, 1965 and the Building Laws 1972. It is stated that when the , ( 5 petitioners intended to apply fOr new building permission, the MCH insisted the petitioners to get NOC from the NOC Committee chaired by the loint Collector, Hyderabad (c) It is stated that on enquiries by the Petitioners, it was revealed that the Society had filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regutation) Act, t976 (for short 'the ULC Act'), claiming among other lands, the land in Sy.Nos.39 to 42, on the basis of the ORC granted by the Tribunal under the Abolition of Inams Act. The layout of the Society was declared surplus. The Society carried the matter in Appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Appeals registered as Appeal No.Hyd/211L987. The appeal was dismissed on 19.02.2003. However, the Society did not question the order of the Appellate authority. (d) It is stated that WP.No.8729 of 2003 was filed by the Vasudevamma Charitable Trust challenging the order dated

19.02.2003 of the Appellate authority and this Court granted status-quo on 02.05.2003. A counter was filed by the Special Thasildar, Zone-II, wherein it is clearly averred that "in view of the status-quo granted by this Hon'ble Court further proceedings in respect of the land could not be taken up". In the meanwhile, the ULC Act was repealed on 27.03.2008. As possession was not 6 taken, WP.No.8729 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn by order ,) dated L6.02.20L2. (e) It is stated that the respondents, allegedly, have taken possession on 27.03.2008, the date on which, the ULC Act was repealed and even when status-quo order paised in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force. The alleged surplus land was not at all inspected on ground and a paper panchanama was conducted. The alleged notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to the GPA of the Declarant and not to the possessors including the petitioners. The respondent authorities were aware that the Society was agitating its rights in Appeal No.Hyd/21/t987, but neither the Society nor any of its members were issued noticr: under Section 10(5) of the Act. The respondent No.5 has issued notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, which was challenged in in WP.No"26703 of 2018 wherein status quo order was passed.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 in WP.No.150 of 2OL3, it is stated that that the President of Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society and one P. Visweswara Reddy, GPA of B. Ranga Reddy, who was recordecl as Inamdar in Column No.2O of T.S.L.R, filed a statement in Form I in CC.No.H1/L258t/76 and H2/L395U76 declarinq the land in sy.Nos.39 to 42 and 77, 78 of Bolakpur village. As per the revenue records, above survey numbers stand as patta lands in the name of / r' 7 Sri B. Ranga Reddy. As M/s. Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim, the total extent of the land declared was computed to the holding of Sri. B. Ranga Reddy and draft orders under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act were issued determinlng 1,80,821.83 sq. meters in excess of the ceiling limits.

10. It is stated that in response to the draft statement under Section 8 (1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act, objections were filed by Sri B. Vijaya Reddy, LR of late B' Ranga Reddy, Sri Vishveshwar Reddy, GPA and LR of late B. Ranga Reddy; and trustee of Vasudevamma Charitable Trust, Sri P. Bala Narsaiah and Sri T.A Chary, President of M/s Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society. Objections raised by the declarants and other persons were examined on their merits. The objection petitioners did not produce any record or evidence in support of their claims. Therefore, the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was confirmed without any alterations and final orders under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act were issued vide proceedings dated 30.09.1986 declaring the declarants as excess holders to an extent of 1,08,821-83 Sq. meters. 8

11. It is stated that later the case was processed further and notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued and got published in AP Gazette No.102 dated 04.05.1987 and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was also i:;sued and got published in AP Gazette No.139 dated L4.07.L9t17 vesting the surplus land with the Government free from all encumbrances. Later, possession of the land was taken over under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.03.2008 under cover of panchanama to an extent of 64,964.26 sq. meters, which includes the land of the writ petitioners. L2. It is stated that the request of petitioners for issue of No Objection Certificate was rejected by the Commit.tee Constituted under G.O.Ms.No.zLLl, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated

05.12.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.93, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 28.01-2006 in the meeting held on 13.03.2OL2 and Endorsement No.E1l1L14/2OI2 dated 22.O3.2012 was issued rejecting request of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed any application for regularization of land under relevant GO's before Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC. In respect of the averments that no appeal was filed before appellate authority and also appeal against o.s.No.L314 of 2009 it is submitted that this respondent is not a pafty in those cases. / , 9

13. Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, which is evident from the notices Ni1.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 (subject matter of WP.Nos.20394 and 36489 of 2016) wherein possession of the petitioners was admitted. There is building constructed in the subject propefty. Physical possession was not taken from the petitioners. Status quo order granted in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force as on

27.03.2008. Even if the vendors of the petitioners, Society, has not filed any writ petition, it is relevant to state that WP.No.8729 of 2003 was filed by one G. Vijaya Reddy, challenging common order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20l198 and HVdl2LlL987. Status quo order was granted in respect of the entire propefty belonging to the original declarant. In view of the status quo order, possession was not taken as admitted in the counter in WP.No.150 of 2013. The alleged panchanama is a fictitious document. Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has not been issued to the petitioners, who are, admittedly, in possession. Further, there is no document filed by the respondent authorities to show that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has been issued to the declarants and possessors of the subject property. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. o l0 L4. Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, submitted that neither the petitioners nor their vendors have chosen to file a writ petition challenging the common order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal No:.HttdlzolL98 and Hvdlzt/1.987. The writ petition was filed only by the appellant in Appeal No.Hyd/211t987 and status quo order passed therein would be applicable only to him and not to the petitioners or their vendors - Society. Discussion and Analysis:

15. It is borne out from the record that WP.No.8'.729 of 2003 filed by Vasudevamma charitable Trust and Vishr,,eshwar Reddy, s/o. Ranga Reddy, challenging the common order dated 19.02.2003 in commissioner Appeals Prog. No.HYD/2O & 2t187 passed by the court of the commissioner, Appeals, office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyclerabad. On the statement by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no further orders are necessary to be passed, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated t6.02.2O12. In the counter filed irr WP.No.8729 of 2003, Ex.P7, at Para 8, it was stated that draft statement under section 8(1) of the utc Act was confirmed on 30.09.1986; the declarant was held to be surplus holder iEo an extent of 108821.83 sq. meters; the declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published on L4.O7.t987; the entire surplus land , Vested with the Government free from all encumbrances and that in view of the status quo order granted by this Court, proceedings in respect of the land could not be taken up.

16. The counter was filed on 01:06.2007 alolg with vacate stay petition. The ULC Act was repealed in the State of AP with effect from 27.03.2008. As possession was, admittedly, not taken, the counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.8729 of 2003 reported before this Court that no orders are necessary and as stated above, the writ petition was dismissed on 16.02.2OL2.

17. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment did not rebut the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ULC proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20 and 2U87, so far as other appellants (Vasudevamma Charitable Trust represented by its Trustee, Vishveshwar Reddy and B. Vishveshwar Reddy, S/o. B. Ranga Reddy) stood abated by virtue of section 4 of the Repeal Act. Thus, it is clear that the land in possession of the petitioners in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was not taken, which is evident from para 8 of the counter affidavit therein.

18. It is surprising to note that the respondent No.1 though assefted that they have taken possession of the subject land from the petitioners on 27.03.2008 (date of repeal of ULC Act in the t. t2 state of AP), no details of service of notice under siection 10(5) of ,.1 the ULC Act are mentioned in the counter affidavit. In para a(ii) of the counter, it is stated that Section 10(1) notification was issued on 04.05 .1987; declaration was issued and got published on L4.o7.LgBg7 and possession was taken over under section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.O3.2OO8.

19. The record in HzlL395t/76 produced by the learned Governmr:nt Pleader for Assignment has been verified by this court and it is found that section 10(5) notice dated 2s.oz.zoo8 (page No.1471),. though prepared in the name of Vishweshwar Reddy, has not been dispatched. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that notice has been dispatched through registered .post or served on the declarant/family members/legal heirs in person. Further, as stated in para 15 above, it is clear that possession has not been taken from the petitioners in Wp.No.8729 of 2003.

20. The record does not disclose that any Sectirrn 10(5) notice has been issued in the name of the petitioners or their vendors. Thus, it is very much apparent that the respon<1ent authorities could not take possession of the subject land as sLatus quo order dated 02.05.2003 was passed in respect of both apprears i.e. Appeal Nos.Hydl20 and 2LlB7 filed by B. vishweshwar Reddy and M/s. Padmasali co-operative House Building Society, respectively. / r' l3 2t. It has been held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARf RAM1 that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act is mandatory and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder

34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of "possession" which says where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorized by the State Government.

35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land is vested" under sub- section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Subsection (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession. Fo rcefu I d ispossessio n

36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order '(zor)4 scc 280 i I t t4 under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) to Section 10 again speaks of "possession" which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub- section (5), the competent authority n.lay take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force - as may be necessary - can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing c,r fails to comply with the order under sub- section (5), in the event of which the competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, thr:refore, is being resorted only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations, i.e. taking possession by giving notice that is "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), than "forceful dispossession" under sub-section (6) of Section 10''

37. The requirement of giving notice urrder sub- sections (5) and (6) of Sectron 10 is mandatory. Though the word 'may' has been used therein, the word 'may' in both the sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a court charged with the task of enftlrcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it mlght result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word 'may' has to be read as 'shall'."

22. In view of the above discussion, as Section 10(5) notice and Section 10(6) order has not been served on the petitioners and moreover, as the notice dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated / / l5 Ni1.06.2016 (wP.Nos.2o394 and 36489 of 2016) beyond doubt prove petitioners are in physical and actual possession of the subject lands, this court does not have any hesitation to hold that the alleged panchanama dated 27.03.2008 is a paper possession and illegal. Since the possession of the subject iand has not been taken over from the petitiohers, the ULC proceedings so far as subject land is concerned stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

23. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings No.E1l11L4/20L2 dated 22.O3.2OL2, proceedings dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated Ni|.06.2016 are quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the building applications of the petitioners without reference to the ULC proceedings in CC. N o.H2/ L395L/76. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Monday, the First Day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY/ SD/.MOHD. ISM UTY SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangan retariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana - 500 022.

2. The Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State " of Telangana.

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tVunicipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. I l t i I I / of NOC Committee) NamPallY, HYderabad'

4. The Special officer and competent authority, urban Land ceiling' Nampally' s. ff:t#*:::i"Xt, or po,ce, Hyderabad citv, Basheerbagh, Hvderabad . 6. The Chief Commissioner, Office oi tn" Commissio'''"i oil'nd Administration' / 7. The Joint collector, Hyderabad District, Government of Telangana' (on behalf B. The District coiilJor, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad-s00 001' 9. The Tahsildar, [\Iusheeraoao rrlanJal;- Hyderabad oistrict, Hyderabad -500 ,,o ?'r: Tahsildar/tMandal Revenue officer, Secunderabad tr/andal' Hyderabad 11.The Stzrtion #;;; offi""', P'S' tMusheerabad' Hyderabad' 12.Onecc to SRtVrlnv B.pARopnKnnr, Advocate tdPUCI r5.On" CC to SRI D.SRINIVAS' Advocate [OPUC]- - 14.one CC to sni ..T,nDHUSUDHNN NEbOY, Sb FCIR GHMC [OPUCI 1 5. Two ccs to gp Fon ASSIGNMLNi, l-tigrr court for the state of Telangana at 16.Two CCs to cp ron HotuE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] District, Telangana State' ^^..a r^, 1 Hyderabad [OUT]

17.Two CD CoPies Mt BSR BS t6 CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 01 11212025 \ \ () ( * -';'rlE Sh 1 I $[[ ?ii25 z" (\ * t/ COMMON ORDER wP.Nos.150 of 2013,9240 of 201s,20394 and 364g9 of 2016 and 18652,23169 and 3051 1 of 2O1g ALLOWING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \4