Smt. Kalakuntla Satya Priya v. '1 . The State of Telangana

5 Smt. Venoala Sreemathi, Wio ShaniRaramurthy, aged' 62 years' Occ House- - hold Rio ti.No.z+-g-85/D, Ganesh Nagar, Prahashreddy pet, Hanamnonoa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,orderordirection'particularlyoneinthe nature of the writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the peaceful possession of the vacant land of the Petitioners by layingS0'feetRoadwithoutfollowingdueprocessoflawinacquiringthesubject land and not considering the representation of the 2nd Petitioner dated '12-09- 7 2024 by taking action against the unofficial respondents 3 and 4 as per the section 253 of the Municipal corporation Act, 2000 is arbitrary, unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 in not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioners land to an extent of 466.50 Sq. yards bearing plot No.4 comprised in Sy. Nos. 99/B, 99iC and 99/D situated at Ganesh Nagar, Prakash Reddy Pet, Hanumakonda Mandal and District and also consider the representation dated 12-09-2o24 made by the 2nd petitioner by taking action against the respondent 4 and 5 as per section 178 of the Municipal corporation Act, 2000, |.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 Gourt may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioners land to an extent of 466.50 sq. yards bearing plot No. 4 comprised in Sy. Nos. 99/8, 99/C and 99/D situated at Ganesh Nagar, prakash Reddy pet, Hanamkonda Mandal and District by considering the representation dated .12-09- 2024 made by the 2ncl Petitioner in taking action against the respondents 4 and 5. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI PASHAM MOHITH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : -- The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2O48 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioners, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of 466.50 Sq. yards in Plot No.4 situated at Ganesh Nagar, Prakash Reddy Pet, Hanamkonda - within respondent No.2-Municipality, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.20854 of 2024 dated 29.O9.2024. Even then, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to dispossess the KL,J W.P.No.2O48 ot 2025 2 petitioners liom the subject property under the guise of laying 80 feet road without following due procedure laid down under law. It is also the specific allegation of the petitioners h ere in that respondent Nos.4 ancl 5 are making co nstruction in their property. Therefore, petitioners LLerein have submitted a representation dated I2.O9.2O24 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and not to lay road in the aforesaid property of the petitioners. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas. Sri pasham Mohith, lear-ned Standing Counsel appearing for responderet Nos.2 and 3 ,ofl rnstructions, would submit that respondent Nos.t2 and 3 never tried to dispossess the petitioners from their property and there is no proposal of laying BO feet road at KL,J W.P.No.2O48 ol 2025 3 present. There is an existing road. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs. They are placed on record.

5. However, if respondent Nos.4 and 5 makes construction in the subject property belongs to the petitioners, they have to approach competent Civil Court by way of filing suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot consider the said aspect.

6. At this stage, Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are making construction in deviation to the building permit order. But, the same is not there in the representation dated 12.09.2024 submitted by the petitioners. If there is deviation to the I I building permit order, petitioners have to specifically state the same and submit a representation to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 by mentioning the said I I deviations. KL,J W.P.No-2tt48 ot 2025 4 ,')

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, 1.his Writ Petition is ctisposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to submit liesh representation to respondent No.3 specifically stating that respondent Nos.4 and 5 a,re making construction in deviation to the building permit order obtained by them from respondent No.2 by mentioning the said deviations ald on submitting the said represt:ntation respondent No.3 shall consider the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a :;equel, the miscellaneous petitions., if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .i,rr\ OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Sercretariat buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Commissic,ner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal. Warangal District. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Kazipet Circle-2, Kazipet, Hanamhonda District. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOpMENT, High Court_for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.MURALTDHAR REDDY, Advoiate tbpUCl One CC to SRI PASHAM MOH|TH, Advocate (OpUi) Two CD Copies SA To 1 2 J 4 \ 5 6 7 BSv I C.C. TODAY -=? ==:: s1 ATt (-) ( q c '7 C'tl, A. * 3 0 Jt,N 'lt?[ I oe sr,aj! ,,i( HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ORDER WP.No.2048 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t \/ I I