'1. Punreddy Narender Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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 directions mostly one which is in thenatureofaWritofCertioraricallingfortherecordsinandrelatingtotheorder passed on 31-12-2013 in Memo No 26531/PTS'lVtA2t2O12-4 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondent Nos l to 5 to forthwith demolish the structures raised by the Respondent Nos 6 to I in the land belonging to the petitioners in Survey No 102 of Chinthapally village and Mandal of Nalgonda District' r.A. NO: 2oF 2014(WPMP. NO:11 247 0F 201 4) PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased suspend the operation of the order dated 31-12-2013 in Memo No.26531/PTS .lVtA2t2O12-4 of the 1st Respondent' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.RAGHAVENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.S: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7, g & 9: SRI JALLI NARENDER The Court made the following: ORDER a a .9 A 'q n l' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T'MADHAVI DEVI w.P.NO.9ooo oF 2014 oRDER: In thrs rr,'rit petition, lhc pclirioners are challcnging the procccdings oi Lhe rcspondt;trt No i ciatcd 31 12 2013 as iliegal' arbitrary and to quash thc same and dirccL the respondents Nos.l to 5 to demolish lhe structurcs ralsecl by t'l-rc rcspondents Nrl.6loginthclandbclongingt()thcpctltlollersirrSu.n,ey No.102 of Clhinthipaliv Village arrd N4andal o1 |lalqonda District and to pass sucli otircr order or orctcls tll Lire itrtcrost ofjustice'

2. ijricl facts lcatlirrg to thc iifing oi the prcscnt wrtt pciition arc that the Pel itic.rtrer No-1's u'i[e Smt.I'unreddy Sumathamma, Smt G Vasanthamma' mother of the Petitioner No.2 ancl Smt.G Kamatamma' the tno[her o[ Pt:titiotlers No 3 anC 4 a.nd Sri.K.Narasimulu rhe l-ail-rer of thc lref ilioners No'5 to 1 1, together purchased Ac 'l'32 gts ' of l:Lnd in Survey No- 1O2/Azr of Chinthipally Villagc ancl Gram Panchayat Limts and Chinthapaily Pancliayat Samithi' Nalgonda District vide registered document No'9i,'1 / 1978' datcd 24 08'1978' Smt.Sumathammar sold her sharc i e '' 1 l4d' of land in favour of one Ddul1a Narasimha Re <lcly through registered sale deed documcnt No 1518i 1981' dated 23 10'1981 Thc mother of the 2 Petitioners No.3 and 4 Smt.G.Kamalamma has sold her share i.e., 1 /4th of land in lavour of thc petitioners No.3 and 4 through registered sale cjeed document No.4O62/1992, dated 24.08.1992 and all the petitioners No.S to 11 havc received the land from their father. Thus, I hcy claim to be the owncrs and possessors of Ac.3.32 gts., of land in Survey No.1O2/Aa. It is submitted that the respondenls No.6 and 7 claiming to be the owners of land in Su rvcy No. I 02, have started construct.ion in the petitioners, land and have claimed that the Gram p€rnchayat has passed a resolution datcd 2S.O6.20l l granting construction permission to them. The petitioners therefore, had sought information under the Right to Inlormation Act with regard to the documents submitted by thc respondents No.6 and 7 and whether any permission was granted for construction. A reply was given by the respondent No.4 that no such records were available with them and that as per the records available in the office, no construction permissirrr_r was granted in Survey No.1O2. In view thereof, a notice dated 02.06.2012 was issued to the respondents No.6 to 9 requesting them to stop the construction and it led to the filing of the writ petition by the respondents No.6 and 7 herein before this Court i.e., W.P.No.17759 /2012 ancl though initially there was an interim ( : I ! ./.) 3 plan, c:otls tru ctio t-t the authcnticated direction not to interfere with the construction activity being carried on by lhem, thc writ petilion was ultimately disposed of by order dated 21.O8 2012 with a direction to the respondents No.6 and 7 herein, i e , the r'r'rit petitioners therein to produce copies of the documents of title' approved pcrmission arld other documents before the herern [or due verillcalion and comparison rcspondcnt No 4 lr.ith Gram Panchayat records lt is submittcd lhat sincc the respondcnts No.6 and 7 hcrcin/writ petitloners ln W.P.No. 17759 l'2O12,lailecl to produce the original documents' the Par-rchayat- Secretary issued anolher notice dated 2O.O9.2O12, but the said documents were not produced and thercfore. thc respondent No 4 passed in order vide Proceedings No.286/2012, dated '25 1O'2O12' by holding ttrat the writ petitioncrs herein are the absolute o\ rncrs of the land and the respondents No.6 and 7 herein have merely submitted the Xerox papers and that the Gram Panchayat has not granted any permission tbr construclion as per SecLion 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act in favour of the respondents No 6 and 7 herein and that Lhe construction of the structures made by the respondents unauthorized. Consequently, a notrce No.6 and 7 hcrein is I 4 dated 30.1O.2012 was issued to the respondents No.6 and T for removal of the unauthorized construction 3 challenging the said order of the respondent No.4 dated 25.10.2O12, W.p.No.34996 /2012 was filed before this Court and an interim direction u,as granted by this Court not to take any coercive steps and also to maintain status-quo as on the said date. Thereafter, vide orders dated I4.03.2O13, this Court had directed the official respondents therein to dispose of the revision petition filed by the respondents No.b and 7 herein within a period of two months therefrom. When the respondents No.6 and 7 carried out further construction, police complaints were filed and crimes were registered and ultimately, the impugned order was passed holding that the order dated 25.1O.2O12 was passed without verifying the Gram panchavat records. Challenging the tmpugned order, thc present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petltioners has taken this Court to all the documents hled along with the writ petition to demonstrate that the petitioners hereirr . have valid title to the propert5r, whereas the respondents No.6 , herein have no documents what_so_ever. It is submitted -:'o 5 that the order dated 25'lO 2012 is a detailed order after considering all the relevant documents filed by both the parties and the impugnecl order holding lhc order dated 25 10 2012 as rn,ithoul any basis is illegal lt is further submitted that even belore the respondcnt No.1, the respondents No 6 and 7 herein have not hlecl any documents to demonstrate as to how lhey havebecometheowner-So[thcsubjectpropertyandtherefore, the impugned order is liablc to bc set aside'

5. Learncd Counsel appearing for the respondents No.6 lo 9 relied on the averments in the counter alfidavit along with a stay vacate petition stating that they have purchased Ac.4.37 gts., of land in Survey No 102 from one Mr'Palvai Kistaiah for a sale consideration of Rs'20'0OO/- per acre in the year 1995 and lurther Ac 1'05 gts , in Survey No 102 from one P::lvai Narsimha for valid sale consideration and that they have ConstrucledDr.AlukaJaiHindReddyResidential.JuniorCollege with Hostel and Laboratory trlocks in the land purchased from PalvaiKistaiahinancxtentofAc.4.3Tgts.,andLhattheyhave donaled 2 Acres of land along with the constructed buildings to theGovernmenLLorunGovernmentJuniorCollegeandthatthe Government had issued G O'Rt'No 476 Higher trducation Department, clated 17 07 2012, changing the name of the 6 i;. college to the name of the respondents father i.e., Dr.Aruka Jai Hind Reddy, Government Junior co ege and the balance of 4c.2.37 gts., of land has been leased out wilh constructron to private schools i.e., Nagarjuna Grammar High school and St.Marry trnglish Medium School and that the schools have been running for more than ten years. It is thus submitted that the land belongs to them ancl lhr:y have plantcd various trccs and fenced it with stone pillars and that the thcn Sarpanch Smt.A.P. Latha, after obtaining signatures of the original vendors i.e., Palvai Kistaiah and palvai Narsimha and hrs son palr.ai Niranjan, issued an authorization letter on 77.O1.2OO3 stating that the respondents No.6 to g have purchased the said rand for a valid sale considera lion and another authorizatron was also given on 10.03.2003, by the thcn panchayat Secrerary ancl the Revenue Secretary of Gram panchayaL and the same is also attested by the then Mandal Revenue Olficer to tl-re effect that the respondents No.6 to g are the owners ancl possessors of the land in Survey No.1O2. It is submitted that Survey No.1O2 consisted of a total of 12 Acre s of land and the palvai family members are the original owners and pattadars. It is submitted that the respondents have made an application for the construction of shops and resiciential portions al.ter obtainrng 7 permission from the Gram Panchayat dated 05 07 2O11 It is further submiLted that the wri[ petitioners are claiming the land in Survey No.102/Aa, u'hereas the respondents are the owners ollandinSurr,eyNo.l02andtheotherContentionsinthewrit petition arc rlcnied by the respondents

6. Lcarned Government Pleader appearing for the rcspondent No. 1, also re liecl on the averments in counter aflldavit lilecl supporting thc impugned order'

7. Learned counsel for the petltioners has also filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 to bring on records all the registcred sale deeds through which the petitioners have become the owners and possessors of the subject property and the same was allowed vidc orders datcd 25.O6 2O25'

8. Learned Senior Counsel for both parties have advancecl their trrgurne n ts (). Having regarcl to the rival contentions and the rnaterial on record, this court finds that the writ petitioners have acquired the title to thcir property in Survey No i02/ Aa Lhrough registercd documents, whereas the unofficial respon<lents No.6 to 9 are claiming through authorization given 8 by the concerned Sarpanch in the year 1995. Further, it is noticed from the order dated 25.10.2O12, that the respondents No.6 to 8 have not produced any original authenticaLed documents beforc the concernr:d authority and therefore. Lhe order dated 25.1O.2012 was passed holcling that they cannot bc granted any construction permission. In the revision petition, the respondent No.1 has only relied upon thc report given by the DPO, Nalgonda, to the cffcct that the respondents No.6 to g have submitted an application along with the plan ol tl,re Sarpanch, Gram panchayat Chintapalli, lor grant of construction permission and after calling for objcctions on the proposed constructions, the Gram panchayat has passed a resolution dated 25.06.201 1 and accordingly the orders lor construction permission were issued on 05.o7.201r . Hor,r,cver. this Court hnds that there is no reference to the production of the original authorization given by the conccrned Sarpanch in the year 1995. There are no documents what_so ever liled by the respondents No.6 to g to show that the title has passed on to them in survey 1O2 legally. The direction of this Court in W.P.No.i7759 /2012 was to produce the authenticaLed copies of the document title, approved plan, construction permission and other documents before the respondent No.4 for due vcrification l l I i I 9 in compariscln with Gram Panchayat records' The revisron authority has obviously not gone through Gram Panchayat records and the original documents of authorization granled in Revenue favouroftherespondentsNo.6togbeforepassingofthe impugned order. Thercfore, the impugned order is 1iab1e to be set aside. Ttrc respondents No 6 to t have also filed only the by the Xerox copies of the auLhorization letters issued cor-rcerncd Sarpanch, the Panchayat Secretary and Secrelary at Page Nos' 173 to 180 of the stay vacate petition filed arc therefore granted b), the rcspondents. The respondents Iiberty to file Lhc originals of these rcvisional authority u'ithin a period of One (1) Month from the <1ate of rece ipt o[ a copy of this orcler as r'l'ithin the time granted b), him for the said purpose' If such documents are hled by the n:spondctrts No.6 Lo 9, then Lhc respondcnt No l shall call lor the Gram Panchayat records and verify the same and take a fresh decision after issuing notices to the writ petitioners herein as well. Howcvcr, if the respondcnts No 6 to 9 fail to submit documents before the suchdocumenlswithintheabovcperiod,itshallbepresumed and deeme<l that there are no such documents in existence and proceed with thc issue in accordance with law' It is needless to nrention that principles of natural .iustice sha11 be followed and IO due opportunity of hearing shall be given to the writ petitioners herein as weil 10 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs 11 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed ,Il,:j::I{:.'Si',i{.dLiilti,"iH'si,ltfi ,,i,[03il[Ij,,lj,L",*," I hursday, the rhirty rirst oay oiJuly, i;; ih;;.Ijlo ,na rwenty Five. //rRUE coPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY#G|SrRAR SECTIbN.oFFIcER I3i" [.li:";i i.:.:?:",,?,%,,'r?fr":,ila:,Iri. :81,S#,#: Il:",.33*,n""ioner' Panchavat Raj, Government of Andhra pradesh, pment (pTS) langana. "?:l+3 l i To, 1 2 lrv Gram Pa n cha va t. c h i nthapa ly vi las e

3. The District panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda ' lffi fi 3ffi :i',ft l33il,"i3",c1rinthapa 5. The Tahsildar, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6. One CC to SRt KARRT IVURALT KR|SHNA, Advocate tOpUCI 7. One CC to SRI JALLT NARENDER, Advocate tOpUCJ u ,Br"rBi to sRl P-RAGHAVENDER REDDY, sc FoR GRAM PANCHAYAT e. Two CCs ro Gp FoR pllg^Il,yllB$J & RURAL DEV, High Court for the 'o lyi"lr8:ot?ror?lFoR REVENUE' High courr for the State of retansana at 1 1. Two CD Copies State of Telangana at HyderabaO tOUft'- BSR BS w -.x!'.,'..d'r,:r'*l i n I I t t I I I ! l : i HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 () U OII|JEM n * O5 -\-:--r,' SP.qfr) '.rt0 7 i. ORDER WP.No.9000 of 2014 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS e45tot: K"