M. Vijaya Bhaskar v. 1. State of Telangana

Petiticn under Section 151 CPC praying that in ttie circumstances stated in the affidarrit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the construction of building in Door No.1-59/3711;41A, Madinaguda, Hyderabad as per permit dated 12-06-2018, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to3: GP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court rrade the following: ORDER :1, ' ,: -:.;..1 .' : THE HONOURABLE SH ORDER: with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ Petition is filed for the following reliet "...to rssue anA appropriate utrit, ord.er or direction mor? particularlg one in *e nafiire of wit of mnndamus declarirlg tfle action of ttle respondent No.3 in obstructing and. tlweaiening to demoli.sh the onstruction in Door No.l_ 59/37/54/A, Ma.dinagntda, Hgderabad. a.s per permit No.S/ C2 t / 09964/ 20 t B dated" 12.06.2018 a,s illegal, null, uoid and arbitrary and to pass such otlrcr order or ord.ers..."

3. Heard Mr. K.Durga prasad., learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the material available on record. I 2 EW,J wP 3701 2020

4. The pretitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of a house beerring Municipal No. 1 -58 /38 /54 / A, admeasuring 206 square yards, situated at Madeenaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The said propert5r was acquired under a registered sale dee<l bearing Document No.8657 lLggg, dated 22.12.L999. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for regalartzation of the said land under the Layout RegularizaLion Scheme (LRS) in the year 2010. Upon pa5rnent of the requisite charges Rs.9O,OOO/-, the authorities issued proceedings uide No.LRS/ 2O4lCR- L2 /West 27,one fGHMC/ 2OlO, dated 26.Ll.2OLL. Further, the petitic,ner submitted an application to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in File No.3/cl2/lr9o3/2oL7, pursuant to which a building permission was granted on L2.o6.2oL8, allowing constructic,n of a stilt plus two upper floors. The building plan was duly approved in accordance with the said permission. subsequently, when the petitioner started I construition of the house respondent No.3 came to the said 3 EW,J wP 3701 2020 plot and threatened him to dispossess and directed to stop construction and threatened if the constmction is continued they will demolish the structure. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for trre petitioner submits that though the petitioner is the owner of the subject land and making construction in the said land after obtaining necess€rry permission from the authorities concerned^, respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess him from the said land and threatening the petitioner to stop the constnrction or else they will demolish the structure made by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, pursuant to the order of this court dated 26.02.2020, Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate, was appointed as Advocate commissioner to inspect and record the physical features of the land claimed by the petitioner, as shown in the photographs frled by the petitioner, and to ascertain whether any graveyard exists on the site identified by the petitioner. The inspection was to be carried out in the 4 EW,J wP 3701 2020 presence of the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer or any other oflic,er authorized by him. It is submitted that, in complianc,: with the said order, the Advocate Commissioner conducted the inspection and filed a report, which was taken on r:ecord by this Court. As per the said report, the land in possession of the petitioner is different and separate from the l;end being claimed by the respondents. In light of this finding, ttre respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession or ongoing constructi,cn activities provided that such constmction is being carried out in accordance with the duly sanctioned 7 . In vievr of the above, taking into account tl:e objections raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that, so far as the petitioner's claim of title over the subject property is concerned, the sarne is disputed and can be adjudicated only upon appropriate clarification and by taking necessary steps in accordance with law. However, as it is further submitted that no action, as apprehended by 5 EW,J wP 3701 2020 the petitioner is initiated by the respbndents without following due process of law, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession or initiate any action in respect of the subject propert5r, except in accordance with the due process of law. g. with the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of., n As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if a,y, shall stand closed /I To SD/.AHMFD ABDULLAH KHAN //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER AsstsrANr ysrsrnaCe j [i"?,[3:li"X,ff "{:|fl I [:I:?'e Department secrerariat, r.S., Hyderabad i lf,li3fu?"#x3f,ffiliffi..ffit?li,[fi:r r u;s'ryinFr?.:ttati B,fixs: :1ffi":,"""1"'Hri""-"{E\A[[t]0gittff ?L?[ff $:l"orre,ansanaat I. ?,13 33 3;[! bnrr,npnrH PRABF{AKAR REDD', sc FoR GHM. {opuc] BM SAo corporation, circre No 12, ) HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ? ,.STA

1.,. c.() 2 1 lrN 2$26 ;, t Dr a ,1 I ,+1'' ', ORDER WP.No.:3701 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS II ,df