1. N. Shyam Babu v. The State of Telangana

Smt. K.Shantha Kumari, D/o D. Satyanarayana Aged about 60 yea 97, Gandhi Nagar Sheet, Nava Bharat Area, Palwancha, Kothagudem District rs, R/o.5-4- Bhadradri ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of India 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. i) to declare the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 08.01.2025 in Roc No. G1l113112024, which was duly received by the petitioners on 17.01 .2025 directing them to remove the road encroachment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and against the powers vested in him under Sec. 185 of the 7 Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, and ii) to consequently to set aside the sam e. 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 suspenc the impugned Notice issued by the second respondent dated 08.0'1 .2025 it Roc No.G111 13112024, which was duly received by the petitioners on 17.0' .2025 by staying all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice. Counsel for the Petilioner : M/S JURISLIT LAW LLP Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counser for the Respondents No.2 'S[,I"r;tlfifili#lffiEDDY, Counsel for the Respondents No.3&4 : The Court made the following: ORDER l I 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2764 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record. In view of the nature of relief sought by the 2. petitioners, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4.

3. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of house bearing No.5-4-110, Gandhi Nagar, Navabharat Area, Palvancha. The said house was constructed by the father of petitioner No.2. They are in possession of the sarne. on the complaint dated O3.LO.2O24 lodged by respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 has issued a notice in September, 2024 alleging that petitioners are trying to KL,J W.P.No.2764 of 2025 2 encroach 9 feet wide road I way area by erecting the shutter across the road. Seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioners to submit documents. petitioners submitted reply on 15.10.2024. Without considering the said reply properly, respondent No.2 has issued alother notice, dated O8.O1.2025 under Section 185(1)(2)(3)(a) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 directing the petitioners to remove the above road encroachrnent within 15 days otherwise the same will be removed by them under the provisions of the Telangaaa Municipalities Act, 2019. Challenging the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.3 has frled a Writ petition vide W.p.No.381 14 of 2022 to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the representation dated 03.1O.2022 submitted by him complaining the illegal construction by petitioner No 2, as illegal. This Court, vide order dated 12.10.2022 disposed of the said writ petition directing 7 KL,J W -P.No.2764 of 2025 3 respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated

03.1O.2022 of respondent No.3 after giving due opportunit5r to petitioner No.2 by issuing notice within six weeks.

5. On the complaint lodged by the petitioners herein, Police Alwal Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No.316 of 2022 against both respondent Nos.3 and

4. Petitioners specifically stated that they have not encroached into any road as alleged by respondent No'3 in the said representation. There are disputes between petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot consider it.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that Section 185 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 deals with removal of encroachments on streets. Even according to respondent No.3, he said passage is a private passage. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot issue a notice dated 08.01.2025 KL,J W.P.No.2764 of 2025 4 directing th,: petitioners to remove the road encroachment. In the impugned notice dated O8.01.2025 respondent Nr>.2 has stated that petitioners are trying to encroach 9 fr:et wide road I way area by erecting the shutter across' the road.

7. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has issued Show Cause Notice in September,2024 stating that petitidners are trying to encroach 9 feet wide road I way area by erecting the s;hutter across the road f way area.

8. Petitioners have submitted their explanation dated L5.7O.2O24 stating that they never encroached into the road, / way area. Therefore, respondent No.2 has to inspect the site, conduct enquiry and then come to a conclusion that petitioners encroached 9 feet wide road / way area by erecting shutters. Respondent No.2 cannot issue notice in September 2024 stating that petitioners are trying to encroach 9 feet wide road / way area by KL,J W.P.No.2764 of 2025 5 erecting the shutter across the road' Without considering their reply dated 15.1O.2O24, respondent No'2 cannot issue notice dated 08.01 .2025 drrecting the petitioners to remove the same. Instead of doing so, respondent No'2 has to inspect the site and come to a conclusion that petitioners encroached the road/ way area or not' g. Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that petitioners have manipulated the records' However, respondent No.2 will consider the said aspects' \

10. The afore-stated facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos'3 and 4 with regard to the subject propertlz' Respondent No.2 cannot adjudicate the said disputes' As discussed supra, impugned notice dated 08.0L'2O25 is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside' Matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to t I 1 KL,J W.P.No.2764 of 2O25 6 pass orders afresh by putting the petitiolters and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on notice and affording them an opportunit5r of hearing. Respondent No.2 shalt consider the aforesaid aspects while conducting enquiry. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SREENIVAS REDDY ISI'ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Municipal Administration uepanment. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The commissioner, Parvancha Municiparity, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 3. One CC to M/S.JUR|SL|T LAW LLp, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. Two ccs to GP FoR McpL ADMN URBAN DEV, High court for the state of Telangana [OUT]

5. O_ne CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNtCtpALtTy/MC. loPUCl \

6. Two CD Copies. BSK $ I FI $fr 'rS t\ I : 1-_ j i-) \ t +r i, a) '; 'r' HIGH COURT KL,J DATED:31 10112025 ORDER WP.No.2764 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS e).*''tu