✦ High Court of India · 04 Feb 2025

Katamaiah Gouda Sangam v. 1. The State of Telangana

Case Details High Court of India · 04 Feb 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
04 Feb 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,131 words

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent and their subordinates in interfering with the possession of the petitioner land in Sy No. 348i 1, to an extent of 2800 square yards situated at Jagathgiri Gutta - 126 Division, Qutballapur lvlandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District without issuing any notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner land in Sy No. 34811 ,to an extent of 2800 square yards situated at Jagathgiri Gutta - 126 Division, Qutballapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ..1 t I IA NO: 1 0F 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 direct in" zno respondent not to interfere with the possession of thr.' petitioner land in Sy flo. a+Alf, io an extent of 2800 square yards situated at Jagathgiri Gutta - 126 Division, Qutballapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. SUREDDY PRIYANKA counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl K. RAVINDER REDDY, Sc FoR HYDRAA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: Ms. T. SWETCHA, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC The Gourt made the following: ORDER F l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3118 OF 2o25 oRAL ORDER: Heard Ms.Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No'1, Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos'3 and 4 and Mr.K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that it is in possession of land admeasuring 2800 square yards behind Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Qutbullapur Mandal, since last 1 7 years ' It has been carrying all activities of its community. It has constructed a compound wall and also diety of Yellamma Temple, etc' It has submitted representation dated 22.08.2022 to respondent Nos'3 and 4 with a request to allot land for construction of community hall. On receipt of the said representation, vide order dated 2

14.O9.2022, r:espondent No.3 requested respor:Ldent Nos.4 and 5 to submit proposals and availabiiity report with regard to the subject property for the purpose of construction of community hall. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not submit any report. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are trying to demolish the subject property without folbwing the due procedure laid down under law.

3. Whereas, Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, wouid submit that respondent No.2 has received a teleph,rnic complaint from Haripuri Narahari Swamy stating that he is a priest of Sri Govinda Raja Swamy Temple, Jagathgiri {iutta, and the petitioner is encroaching temple land which is Government land. Howeve::, respondent No.2 will inspect the site ar:Ld if the allegations made by the said Sri Haripuri Narahari Swamy are found to be correct, he will take action against the pel.itioner, strictly in accordance with the procedure laiC down under law. Respondent No.2 will also consider the proceedings dated

14.O9.2022 issued by respondent No.3. ' 3

4. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the telephonic complaint of Sri Haripuri Narahari Swamy and inspect the subject property and if the allegations made by Sri Haripuri Narahari Swamy are found to be correct, he shall take action against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law, by putting the petitioner and Sri Haripuri Narahari Swamy on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.2 shall consider the proceedings dated 14.09.2022, report if any, submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.2 shall also get instructions from respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.2 shall complete the said exercise within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ANT REG]STRAR AS S CTION OFFICER The Principar secretarv. IMrrnicipar Administration and Urban Deveropment Department, rhe statei or reirnb;;;; S#;i;;i' 6.jili"s., Hyderabad. The Commissioner. rhe n"oera"Uia-p6;;i;; i;#;#; and Asset protection Asency, office at 7th Frooi Bhil[; dJv"a;il;fini3ecunoerauao. To, 1 CbhA'L- ,J / / \

3. The District Collector, Medchal-tvlalkajgiri District, Anthaipalli, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. The Tahsildar, Medchal -Malkajgiri District Anthaipalli, [4edchal Malkajgiri District. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Medchal tvlalkajgiri District

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Quthbullapur Circle No. 25. The Greater 6. One CC to Ms SUREDDY PRIYANKA, Advocate [OPLIC] 7. One CC to SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR HYDRAA [OPL,C] 8. One CC to IMs SUREDDY PRIYANKA, Advocate [OPL,C] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangania, [OUT] 1 0. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl '1 1 . Two CD Copies BN BS b J .l HIGH COURT DATE D :04 10212025 \ ORDER WP.No.3118 of 2025 t I I 1! tE ST4 () c 1? 'iii 2i]l5 t o/!r. ,Dzr i e fieO * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @qi'r W

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments