Smt Shankar Gari Laxmi 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 pass an appropriate Writ Order or Direction one in the nature of Mandamus on inaction of the official respondents as on petitioner's representation to the 4th respondent dated 30th December 2024 seeking to stop the illegal construction in petitioner's house plot and Sth respondent registered Crime No 144 of 2024 daled 22.03.2024 and Crime No 503 of 2024 dated 08.12.2024 as tresoass and petitioner's house plot grabbing no further action, are arbitrary. The constructions is going on petitione/s House Plot lies in Survey No 212t2N2 admeasuring North to South 36.3 feet East to West 60.0 feet total area 2178.0 Sq.Feet equal to 242.0 Sq Yards equal lo 202.3 Sq Meters bounded by North Open plot of neighbours, South Open Plot of the Vendor East 30 feet wide Road, West Open plot of Vendor situated Devanpally, Kamareddy Town and District by the 8th respondent and other unofficial respondents is illegal, unconstitutional consequently direct to the respondents to take necessary action on the unofficial respondents. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop the ongoing illegal construction in theof the Petitioner in House Plot lies in Survey No 21212N2 admeasuring North to South 36.3 feet East to West 60.0 feet total area 2178.0 Sq. Feet equal to 242.0 Sq Yards equal lo 202.3 Sq Meters bounded by North Open plot of neighbours, South Open Plot of the Vendor East 30 feet wide Road, West Open plot of Vendor situated at Devanpally, Kamareddy Town and District forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition to meet the Justice. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.J.VINOD KUMAR Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Respondent No.2 & 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, Counsel for the SC FOR MCPL Respondent No.S: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER -7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN UIRIT PETITION No.3329 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G.J.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home for Sth respondent.

2. Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. O.O2 guntas in Survey No.2l2l2A, situated at Kamareddy District on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.6580 of 20 18 dated 08.O8.2018.. Respondent Nos.6 to 9, his neighbours are making construction by encroaching into the aforesaid land belongs to the petitioner. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 30.L2.2024 to the 4tt' respondent municipatity and also lodged a complaint with sth respondent l with a request to take action against respondent Nos-6 to 9- Sth respondent has already registered a crime against them. But Xtr, ' respondent is not considering the said representation. a... i I ! I 2 Aggrieved by the said inaction of 4th respondent, petitioner \ filed the present writ petition.

3. Whereas Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are disputes between petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 9 with regard to subject property, which the 4tt' respondent cannot consider.

4. As discussed supra, it is the specific allegation of the petitioner herein that respondent Nos.6 to 9 are making construction into the land belongs to the petitioner by encroaching into his land. Thus, there are disputes between petitioner arrd respondent Nos.6 to 9, which 4th respondent Municipalitl, cannot consider. Petitioner has to approach competent civil Court by way of liling a suit for injunction against respondent Nos.6 to 9. Instead of doing so, he has submitted a representation dated 30.12.2024 to 4tt' respondent with a request to take action against respondent Nos.6 to 9 and filed the present writ petition alleging non- consideration of the said request. Therefore, petitioner herein I i 3 is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition.

5. This Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SDAL. VI ASSISTANT JA TRAR SECTION FFICER

1. One CC to SR.l G.J.VINOD KUMAR, Advocate TOPUCI 2. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR BS lr' I I I I I I I i f i I t HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212025 ORDER WP.No.3329 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS // /.8 t7 .lt ,/21 lt'-< \ IA rC: fit\ ?s25 t spArc ) 9 * .!;'