Chunchu Raju v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe 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 direction more particularly one in .....RESPONDENTS the nature of Writ rf Mandamus under Article 226 of lhe Conr,titution of lndia declaring the the act on of Respondent No.2 and 3 in issuing the intimation letter vide file no. E-291 t51|GWMC/TP/C|r-V2O24, Dated 0611212024 by stating that there is no illegal o' unauthorised constructuin under taken by tt're Respondents No.4 to 8 in mg Plol to an extent of 252.77 Sq.yards in Sy.No.250 and 251 of Deshaipeta, Waranl;;rl as being null, void, arbitrary, illegal, contr;rry to law apart from being violative rrf Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-A of the Conr,rtitution of lndia and consequently clirect the Respondent No.2 and 3 to condu:t ground level enquiry to identify the illegal construction raised by 4th to 8th :lespondents in Petitioner's two Plols in survey No. 250 and 251 admeasuring i 52.77, situated beside H.No.11-24-203 at 80' Road, Deshaipet Road, Poch;lmma Maidan, Warangal Urban city and demolish the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court ma', be pleased to direct the Respond€,nt.- No.2 and 3 to conduct ground level enr luiry to identify the illegal constructi()n raised by 4th to Bth Respondents in petiti(rner's two plots in survey No. 250 arrcl 251 admeasuring 252.77, situated beside t.l.No.1 1-24-203 at 80' Road, Deshe ipet Road, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal tJrban city and demolish the same pending disposal of lhe above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD. GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN PASH,A Counsel forthe Resoondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND UIIBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI P.MOHIT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 : - The Court made the following ORDER r HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN WRIT PETTTTON No.33 11 oF 202s ORAL ORDER: None appears for the petitioner, both pre-lunch and post-lunch'

2. Heard Mr. Pasham Mohit' leamed Standing Counsel for appearing on behalfof respondent Nos'2 and 3'

3.Perusalofrecordwouldrevealthatthepetitionerhereinhas frled a writ petition vide W 'P' No'33076 of 2024 to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 25'10'2024 as illegal' Vide the said representation, he has requested respondent Nos'2 and 3 to demolish the illegal construction raised by respondent Nos'4 to 8' Yide order dated 26.11.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No'2 to consider the said representation dated 25.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order'

4. When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 26.l1.2l24,leamed Standing Counsel for respondent Nos'2 and 3' on instructions,submittedtothisCourtthatrespondentNos.4to8have obtained three (03) buitding permissions dated 26'07 '2O21 arrd ( 2 K ,,J WP N'llllof2025

08.10.2021. lhey have completed constructions nvo (02) yei Lrs back- The petitioner has also filed a suit vide O.S. No.405 of 202t1 on the file of leame,J II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Waranga against respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 8 seeking perpetual injunction. l owever, the same was ,lismissed as withdrawn on23 .08.2022.

5. Thus, the petitioner suppressed the said fact in the earlier writ petition iurd in the present writ petition. There is titlt dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 8 which rer,pondent No.2 cannot rlecide. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

6. In compliance with the order dated 26.11.2024, rer"pondent No.2 has inlbrmed the petitioner herein that there are disputes between the p,etitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 8 with rega"d to the title of the r;ubject property. Therefore, respondent No.l cannot adj udicate and decide the same. The petitioner has to r Lpproach competent Ci'rr.l Court. Therefore, there is no error in the ilnpugned Intimation dated 06.12.2024 of respondent No.3. The petitior er f'ailed to make out any case to interfere with the said impugned in imation. Thus, this wrir petition fails and the same is liable to be dismi: sed. 3 KL,] W.P No lll I of2025 7 . This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances bf the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSlS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To Telangana. [OUTI l.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof 2 o;; ic 6 Snin,tb onousE MoHluDDlN PASHA, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SRI P.MOHIT, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD CoPies SA GJP HIGH COURI' DATED:0510212025 ORDER WP.No.3311 of 2025 ,'', t' .) i-) (-) i 2 2 APB zui ') il t oa-js FIAT.j ../. 2- DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. , 4./ /,/e^ /< i I