Samreddy Bal Reddy v. l. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly No.3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.05.08 guntas, in Sy.No.951, situated at Koheda Village, Abdulapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the name of the Notice (Personal Hearing ) dated 01-02-2025 and proposing to take coercive action that too without providing the copy of the alleged complaint, without affording an opportunity of proper hearing illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India besides in violation of the principles of natural justice including in violation of the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently to set aside the Notice (Personal Hearing) dated 07-02-2025 and thereby direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioner's land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.05.08 guntas, in Sy.No.95l, situated at Koheda Village, Abdulapurmet Mandal. Ranga Reddy District; IA NO: I 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 suspend the Notice (Personal Hearing) dated 07-02-2025 including direction to the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioner's land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.05.08 guntas. in Sy.No.951, situated at Koheda Village, Abdulapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No. l: Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following SRI. E VENKATA SIDDHARTHA GP FOR IVICPL ADMN URBAN DEV THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAN WRIT PETITION No.379O OF 2o25 ORDER Heard Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Katika Ravinder Recidy, learneci Standing Counsel appearing for responderrt Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record

2. The petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acre 05.08 gutas, in Survey No.951, situated at lloheda village, Adbulapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy [)istrict, under registered sale deeds bearing document N:s.6333, 6335, 6336,6337,6338 and 6340 of 2013 and all sale deeds dated 29.10.2013. It is farm land. To protect the said land, he has constructed a compound wall. He has in possession of the said property. It is an open lan 1. Even then, respondent No.3 had served a notice dat-.d O7.O2.2O25 stating that the has received a written complaint along with layout pian from the owners of the plots alleging that petitioner encroached the layout and blocklng of internal roads in Survey Nos.951 and 952 of Koheda village, Ranga Reddy District and he also fenced the said lend. Therefore, l h),.,1 W'.P.No..:790 ol' ){)):: respondent No.3 requested the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 08.02.2025 (Satt,rr.r:[a1,) at O3:OO p.n., along with the copies of the follor,rring documents:

1. Copy of registered documents of property. 2. CopA of link documents. 3. Doanments of patta Passbook and pahanis, artg other proceedings.

4. Details of Court cases (if any). 5. Any other releuant documents supporting Aour claim.

3. The petitioner received the said notice on 07.O2.2O25. He is not in position to collect the copies of the said documents and submit the same to respondent No.3 within 24 hours time granted to him. I{owever, he sent his person on 08.02.2025 to the office of respondent No.3 with a request to give reasonable time to furnish copies of the said documents. The time grant.ed by respondent No.3 is unreasonable. He sought a week time to submit the copies of the same

4. Sri E. Venkata Sicldhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.3 has already demolished the eastern side of the compound wall. The said action of respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal. Instead of granting a week time as sought by the petitioner, respondent No.3 started -:) t,I .., I \/\r P No.-i7()( ) ol .1r.t)5 dernolishing of compound \ /all today i.e., 09.O2'2025 (Sr-rndar,)

5. Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy. learned St anding Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instruction;, rn,ould submit that respondent No.3 will grant reasonallle time to the petitioner herein to submit the copier; of the said documents and on hearing them, he will tal<e steps against the petitioner herein in accordance with the law

6. Though the petitioner is ciaiming that he has constructed the compound wall, fenced th: said land, he has not filed a copy of permission obtained lry him from the competent Authority to construct the same.

7. Admittedly, the notice issued by respondent No.3 is dated 07.O2.2O25 and he has granted only 24 hours time to the petitioner to submit the copies of the said documents. He has requested the petiticner to attend enquiry on 08.02.2025 which is a second Salurday. He has started demolition of the compound wall on Sunday i.e.,

09.O2.2025. Thus, the entire action of resp,tndent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal. f { t -l

8. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the copies of the sard documents to respondent No.3 as sought in the notice dated

07.o2.2025 rvithin one week from today. on receipt of the sarne, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and take action, if any, against the petitioner herein strictly in accordance with law. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.3 is directed not to proceed further pursuant to the notice dated O7.O2.2O25. If the petitioner failed to submit the copies of the documents as sought by respondent No.3 within one (01) week from today, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand close SD/-A. SRINIVASA RAO FOR ASSISTANT G //TRUE COPY// -7 To, l. The Principal Secretary (MAUD), State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency, Having its office at Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy City Planner, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency, Having its office at Budha Bhavan, Flyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri E Venkata Siddhartha Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CC to GP for Municipal Administration, High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. One CC to Sri'Katika Ravinder Reddy. SC for HYDRA (OPUC) 7. Two CD copies HIG}I COT]RT KI,.I DATED:09111212025 ORDER WP.No.3790 of 2025 WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF AT THE ADMISSION STAGE /r t! c ? 1' :I \,\. * 0 3 f[B 2[25 ,r' S, ATC}