High Court · 2025

Sri Nalla Maila Reddy, - p/o, Latg Sai Reddy Ag Occ. Educationist Fl/o. H. No. 4-S2, DiWa Naqar,kacF Ghatkesar Mandal, IMedchal-Matkajgiri tlistrict- ed about 76 years, avanisingaram Village AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of relangana, Rep. by its principar secretary, Revenue Department Dr. B.R. Ambedkairetangaha State seci&iriiie;iili;a;; d;;;;;j" " '""

2. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS 3. The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS 4. Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset protection Aoencv (HyDRAA). Reo Jr'iaii Bijil,'" by its Commissioner 7th Ftoor, Budha ehavan ilnigu"j Hyderabad "ibZ

5. ip"|,grql.Municipqlty, Rep by its Commissioner, Ghatkesar Mandat, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ...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 direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent Nos.3 to 5 high-handedly demolishing the compound wall constructed surrounding the hospital building of the petitioner in the land an extent of Ac.o-22 Gts., in sy No.53/P situated at Kachavanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and also questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in trying to demolish the RCC building constructed in the subject property with due construction permission dated 2710912007 without issuing any show cause notice and without conducting any Survey and without demarcation of the Divya Nagar layout Phase -Vl and without having any jurisdiction and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property of the petitioner in the land an extent of Ac.o-22 Gts., in Sy No.53/P situated at Kachavanisingaram village is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of provisions of TS Municipalities Act, 2019 apart from violatic,n of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lnciia ,and consequently direct the respondent Nos.il to 5 to not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject RCC building in the land an extent of Ac.O-22 Gts., in Sy No.53iP of Kachavanisingaram village of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sr:ction 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 Nos 3 tc 5 to not to interfere / demolish the subject RCC building and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and Jnjoyment of subject property in the lan<l an extent of Ac.O-22 Gts., in Sy No.53/P of Kachavanisingaram village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District of the petitioner in any manner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, SC Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION N0.3689 0F 2025 ORDER: ' It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land adrneasuring Ac.O.22 guntas in Sy.No.S3/p situated at Kachivanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.394g of 2006, dated 10.03.2006 and his name was mutated in the revenue records. It is further stated that after obtaining building permission from the Gram Panchayat, Kachivanisingaram Vilt"g. uid.e proceedings No.GPKS/2OOZ , dated 2Z .Og.2OOZ , the petitioner had constructed a compound wall and tu,o rooms in the said premises. The grievance of the petitioner is that acting on the complaint submitted by the adjacent owners, respondent No.4 had demolished the compound wall, without following the due process of law. 2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and u.ith their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently cqntended that in fact the construclion carriecl on by tl-re 2 CVBR. J Wp 368tt 2025 petitioner does not form part of Divva Nagar Layout and after verification of the records, the Gram Panchayat has grirnted building perrrLission. Moreover, if the petitioner and [)itya Nagar Layout Co'rperative Society have any disputes' they have to be resolved by the competent civil Court for ide n tificatiol.r and locaiisation of th': subject lands and the respondent authorities do not have anY power to remove the constructions stating that the said constructions are forming part of Dirya Nagar Lay'1s1' Learne ci Arssistant Government Pleader appearing fr.rr the 4. respondent aut.norities would submit that the respondent authorities are havlng power to remove the illegal encroacllment of the roads or the lands which are vested with the State under Section 24 oI the Telangana Land Revenue Act' 1317 Falsi and also the properties would fall under Section4 of the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that if there is any dispute between the pqtitioner and cther persons' who are claiming that the siubject iand is forming part of Divya Nagar Layout' the said disputes are to be reso lved before the competent civil Court but the respondent authorities are not having any power acting on the complaint eithe r for identification or for removal of the alleged constructlon s I I 3 CVBR, J Wp_3689 2025

5. In view of the above submissions and since it is stated that the respondent authorities have already removed the compound wall vested with the local authority and as the respondent authorities are not having any power or authority to identify the property, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and Dir,ya Nagar Cooperative Society. It is needless to mention that if the Government is having any ciaim over the subject property, the respondent authorities are directed to issr-re a notice and after identifying the subject property as Government property, they could take appropriate action in accordance with law.

6. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR NT RE ASSIS /TTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFTCER \ To, ^sw ;ffi grrgt+*'Ntr*?i*ljffi'm#*ffi " [il:%|tf,fl,;". Pocharam Municipalitv' Ghatkesar Mandal' Medchal- ?H$iE s s'# il f'[i",#,?L:?t"'Ja,l j",:s[,1]'d:t3il|",j3'd"11",ift'I?.1"5,:lJof reransana,at gf'j[ffi fjffi eu cr 1O.Twa CD CoPies /.';,:,'i t' -i- ' ir' i ox- i, l '1 'r i:fi 'i6?5 r I I J | '' :- ) i:.,/ '7! :...-* [.1 .,,, --^... ) ..r '.. .-r. HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATE D : 1 010212025 ORDER WP.No.3689 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS otr( \>