The High Court · 2025

Petition under /\rticle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one i I the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, t olding that the action of the Respondents No.3 to 6 and 8 to 10, in threatening to c emolish the buildings of the Petitioners bearing Municipal No.'19-5-'182/31,19-5-182126, 19-5-182130, 1S-5-182129,19-5-18212911, 19-5-Ma0001, 19-5-Ma0005, 19-5-Ma0003 and '19-5- Ma0002 in Sy.No.693, Market Area, Janagaon Villirge, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District and attemptinc to dispossess the Petitioners, without arry notice and without following the dr re process of law, is illegal, arbitrary, malicrous, politically motivated, against .the principles of natural justice and fair play, abuse of the powers vested in tl^ em and violative of provisions of GHIMC,\ct, besides violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia and may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to demolish or interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyrr ent of the Petitioners over their respective buildings, situated in Sy.No.693, [\4a -ket Area, Janagaon Village, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Di ;trict. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to demolish the buildings of th: Petitioners bearing Municipal No.19-5-182/31, 19-5-182126, 19-5-182130, 19-5-182129, 19-5- 18212911, 19-5-Ma000'1, 19-5-Ma0005,'19-5-Ma0003 ard 19-5-Ma0002, in Sy.No.693, Market Area, Janagaon Village, Godavarik hani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, during the pendency of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: The Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Godavarikhani. Peddapalli District. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. Pothu Raju, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 52 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H. No. '19- B-41, Ashoknagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 2. Thoutam Satish, S/o. lVlatchaiah, aged 48 years, Occ. Advocate, Fl/o. H.No.16-1-4111, Shivajinagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 3. Vadlakonda Uma Rani, W/o. Vadlakonda Yellappa, aged 51 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H. No. 18-5-14411 , Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 4. Kajampuram Rajender, S/o. Brahmanandam, aged about 55 years. Occ.. Business, Rl/o. H.No.16-3-352, Tirumal Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District.

5. Vadlakonda Yellappa, S/o. Dasharatham, aged about 60 years, Occ,. Business, Rl/o.H.No.1 8-5-144/1, Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 6. Dr. Gurram Ramesh Babu, S/o. Muthilingam, aged about 52 yearc, Occ.Doctor, Rl/o. Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District.

7. Adepu Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ.. Business, RJo. H.No.19-5- Ma0005, Lakshminagar, odavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 8. Gopagoni Satish Goud, S/o. G. Kistaiah Goud. aged about 50 years, Occ.. Business, Rl/o. H.No.19-5-Ma0003, Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 9. Gopagoni Chandra Mohan Goud, S/o. G. Kistaiah Goud, aged about 48 years, Occ.. Business, Rl/o. H. No.19-5-Ma0003, Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. l0.Gousiya Begum, W/o. Late Sk. Afzal, aged about 60 years, Occ.. Household, Rl/o. H.No.'19-5-Ma0002, Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal' Peddapalli District ...RESpoNDENTs/wRrr 'ETTT.NERS

11.The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Depa(ment, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad.

12.The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana. A.C Guards, Hyderabad. 1 3.The Joint Collector, lncharge Commissioner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation,Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District. '14.The Assistant City Planner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

15.The Town Planning Supervisor, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

16.The District Collector, Peddapalli District at Peddapalli. 17.The Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal at Ramagundam. 'l8.The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani - lTown Police Station, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

19.The Singarennr Collieries Company Limited., RamagLl dap A191; '! represeited by its General Manager, Ramagundam, P:ddapalli District. . ...RESPONDENTS/RESP()NDENTS Nos.1 TO 10 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the ( ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased to vacate the interim orders, dated 11.01 .2025 passed ir l.A.No.l of 2025 in W.P.No.1432 of 202i. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: The Singarenni Collieries Company Limited., Ramagurdam Area - 1 represeited by its General Manager, Ramagundam, F eddapalli District. ...PETI IONERYRESPONDENT AND '1 . Pothu Raju, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 52 years, Occ. B -rsiness, Fl/o. H. No. '19- 8-41, Ashbknagar, Godavarikhani, Ramigund m Mar dal, Peddapalli District. 2. Thodtam SatiSh, S/o. Matchaiah, aged 48 years, Occ. Advocate, Ryo. H.No.16-1-41il, Shivajinagar, Godavarikhani, rlamagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 3. Vadla(onda tJma Rani, W/o. Vadlakonda Yellappi, aged 51 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H. No. 18-5-14411, Lakshn' nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 4. Kajam-puram Rajender, S/o. Brahmanandam, aged about ss-years. Occ. Busindss, Fyo. l-i.No. t 6-3-352, Tirumal Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, PedCapalli Diskict.

5. Vadlak6nda Ybllappa, S/o. Dasharatham, aged :bout 60 Occ.. Business, Fyo.H.N6. 1 8-5-1 4411, Lakshmlnagar, God: varikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 6. Dr. Gurram Ramesh Babu, S/o. Muthilingam, aged about 52 years, Occ.Doctor, R/o. Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhari, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District.

7. Adepu'Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 5O yea s, Occ.. Business, Fl/o. H.No.19-5- It/a0005, Lakshminagar, odavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 8. Gopagbni Satish Goud, S/o. G. Kistaiah Goud. agtd about 50 years,.Occ.. Buiiness, Fl/o. H.No.19-5-Ma0003, Lakshmrragar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. 9. Gopagbni Chandra Mohan Goud, S/o. G. Kistaia r Goud, aged about 48 years, Ocr;.. Business, R/o. H.No.19-5-M a0003, Lakshminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli Di ;trict. l0.Gousiya Begum, W/o. Late Sk. Afzal, aged about 6( years, Occ.. Household, F/o.'H.No:9-5-Ma0002, Lakshminagar, Godararikhani, Ramagundam Mandal' Peddapalli District -years, ...RESpc NDENTS/'ET',.NER'

11.The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary M.unicipal Administration and-Urban Development Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad.

12.The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana. A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

13.The Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Godavarikhani. Peddapalli District.

14.The Joint Collector, lncharge Commissioner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation,Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

15.The Assistant City Planner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

16.The Town Planning Supervisor, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

17.The District Collector, Peddapalli District at Peddapalli. 18.The Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal at Ramagundam. 19.The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani - I TownPolice Station, Godavarikhani' Peddapalli District' ...RESpoNDENTS/RE.poNDENTS 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 order dated 1 1 .01 .2025 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in WP 1432 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MD AJMAL AHMED Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.RAJINIKANTH REDDY' ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER :.a*( --J- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN TIEDDY WRIT PETITION !'{oJ432 of 2025 ORDER The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the acl-ion of the respondents No.3 to 6 ard g to 10 in threatening to demolish the buildings of the petit oners bearing Municipal Nos.19-5-182/31, t9-5-182/26, tg-S- 82/30, 19-5- tA2/ 29, 79 -5 - 1 82/ 29 / t, 19-5-Ma000 1, 19-5- Ma00O5, 19-5-MaOOO3 and 19-5-Ma0002 in Sy.No.693, Market Area, Jar agaon Village, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, peddapalli District and attempting to dispossess the petitioners without ; ny notice and without followrng the due process of iaw, as beir g, violative of provisions of (;reater Hyderabacl Municipal Corpora ion Act, 1955, besides violative of Articles 14, tg, 2L and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the rlspondents not to demolish or interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioncrs over their respective buildings.

2. The case of the petitioners is that one Mo rammed Khaja Waheeuddin and his three brothers were the origi ral owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.B.23 gunta; in Sy.No.693, Jangaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal, pedr apalli District (erstwhile Kaimnagar District). Out of the said lar d, an extent of 4c.7.24 guntas was acquired by the respondent Nc,10 _ Singarenr ,,I ) Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) by initiating land acquisition proceedings. The remaining land of Ac.0.39 guntas continued under their ownership and possession. The respondent No.10 alleged to have entered into an agreement to purchase the left over land of Ac.o.39 guntas from the pattadars in the year 1968 and filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.135/1975, which was decreed but no sale deed was executed and the decree has become obsolete and inexecutable. The said extent of Ac.o.39 guntas continued to remain under ownership and possession of the pattadars.

3. The petitioners referred to several writ petitions filed in connection with the subject land. llowever, they are not germane for the purpose of this case.

4. The petltioners claimed that they have purchased small extents of land from the pattadars under registei'ed sale deeds and have obtained building permissions, thereafter, constructed buildings. They had been paying property tax to the respondent No.3. While so, the respondent No.10 initiated proceedings against the petitioners and the pattadars under the provisions of the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968, wherein order dated 24.02.2016 was passed by the Estate Officer of the respondent No.10. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in CMA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2016 before the .) VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani and the appeals were allowed by orcer dated 29.06.2016 setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 24.02.2OL6. Aggrieved by the order passed in CMA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2016 date j 29.06.2016, the respondent No.1O filed WP.Nos.33301 and 3330t of 2016 and the same are pending before this Court.

5. It is submitted that the petitioners have let out their buildings to the tenants. The respondents No.3 to,; and 8 to 10 came to the properties of the petitioners on 1t.01.2025 and directed the tenants to vacate the shops as they are going to demolish the buildings. The respondent authorities have engaged heavy machinery like ICB machines and demolishe,l the adjacent properties belorging to the TRS party leaders at abcut g pM in the night and directed the petitioners to vacate the buil( rngs within 24 hou rs.

6. Interim order dated 11.01.2025 was passed by this Court and the operative portion reads as under: "... In tl-e light of the aforesaid facts, matter requires examination. Therefore, both the petitioners, r€spondent Nos.3, 9 and 10 are directed to maintain sfatus quo with regard to the subject property in all respects. .lowever, respondent No.3 shall determine the encroachmer t, if any, by the petitioners into public road and the land ielongs to respondent No.10 other than the aforesaid Ac.0--9 Guntas in Survey No.693, situated at Jangoan Village, and file 4 :t report before this Court alonE with photographs. However, respondent No.10 shall not take any steps and they have to maintain status quo. Any deviation to the aforesaid order will be viewed seriously. "

7. In compliance of the above order, report has been filed by the respondent No.3 vide memo dated O4.O2.2O25. In the report, it is contended by the respondent No.3 that survey of the subject land covered by structures relating to the petitioners was duly conducted under the cover of panchanama, which clearly established that the constructions were taken up illegally in the land relating to SCCL. The survey report, panchanama, location sketch and photographs were filed along with the report dated A4.O2.2O25.

8. The petitioners filed objecticns to the report submitted by the respondent No.3. In the objections, it is contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.3 has not conducted survey and demarcation properly. The location sketch including Google Maps, superimposed map, are all created under the influence of the respondents No.3 and 10. The survey and demarcation is totally incorrect and panchanama is created and not binding on the petitioners, as they were not allowed to participate in the survey.

9. Mr. T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the light of the objections submitted by the petitioners to the report dated ) t t 5

04.O2.2025 and the contention raised that the surve, is conducted without due no1-ice to them, the respondent authorit ies are willing to conduct fresh survey. Learned Additional Adv rcate General submitted that the land in question belongs to tl re respondent No.10 and forrns part of Sy.No.683 whereas the lretitioners are claiming interest over the land in Sy.No.693 of Ja rgaon Village. Despite several reminders, issued by the officials to c )nduct survey, the petitioners are not cooperating and liberty may t e given to the respondent authorities to conduct survey with a d rection to the petitioners to cooperate with the survey.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General further ;ubmitted that in view of the interim order dated 11.01.2025. passed by this Court, the respondent authorities are not in a posit on to proceed with fu rther survey.

11. In the liqht of the aforesaid categorical submir sions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that fresh survey will be conducted by rssuing notice to the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of gii,ing liberty to the respondent authori ,ies to conduct fresh survey bv issuing notice to the petitioners/inte -ested persons. Further action that may be initiated by the respon( ent authorities shall be subject to the outcome of the said sun ey. Until such survey is conducted, the interim status quo order da.ed 11.01.2025 (j ? shall continue to operate. The petitioners are also directed to cooperate with the survey. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A. EENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER rban Development , State of Telanqana. tion, Telangana. A.C. The Pri ncipal Secretary, Munici pal Administration an Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedka r Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner and Directo r of Municipal Ad ministra Guards, Hyderabad. The commissioner' Ramagundam Municipar corporation, Godavarikhani. Peddapalli District. The Joint Collector. I ncharge_Commissiorler, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Godavarikhanf , peooapitti o,siiici:"''''' The Assistant City Planner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, 'Districil - -- ' Godavarikhani, Peddaoalli The Town Planning Supervls.or, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, "'* "-'t' Godavarikhani, Peidarialli oistiict. The District Collector, Peddapalli District at peddaoaIi. lhe Iahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal at Ramaoun'dam The Station House Officer. Godavarikhani _ t i6wn Foirce Station, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District. The Singarenni Collieries C-ompany Limited., Ramaoundam Area _ 1 represented bv its Generat tr4glqCur, Ramagundjm:FeOOapatti bisitct. one CC to SR-t MD AJMAL AHMED.'eo;oiXt.'ropilbi Two CCs to ADDL. ADVOCATE Gefrenni, Uidrr C-oJft tol. tre State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies one CC to SRI I(ADALU p[4p.rl4{4trRAo, S.C. (opUC) One CC to SRI p. SRt HARSHA REDDY, S.C. tOiUCl ' To

1. 2

5. ti. 7 8 q

11. 12.

13. 14. 15. PSK. PVL / HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.1432 of 2025 ')z ir /.-- !. aiJ 2o lEP P5 i\ u- rr- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /g 4* t,/? /df