1. Kanneboina Ailaiah v. State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KANNEBOINA PURNACHAND [pARrv]N-PERSoNI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 8: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.9 & 10: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.11: M/s. R.K.CHITTA The Court made the following: ORDER :=ryt+a-a'!!/' d ,/., -- THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADIIA.VI DEVI ORDER: W.P.NO. 39a7 0F 2024 ln this lvrit petition, the petitioners:lre ri cking a,,l'rit of mandamus to declare the inaction on th( ,)art of Lhe respondents. particulzrrly the respondent No. I.) in taking anY action aqainst the illegal construction C: -l ied oLtt b\' the unofficierl respondcnt No.1 1 on the lat-.r ;itr-tated ir-r Survey No.246, Rasoolpall;r Village (e ar lit - N'lallaram Village), Bh eemadevarpaLlle Mandal, Hanamk,. t,ia District, Telangana, in spite of several complai n ts/ r-c] ) r,lsentiittions and also the official communications lrom tlr ' respondent No.5, as illegal, arbitrary and contran' to thr: r -ovrsions of the Tclangana Panchayat Raj Act and cor : ,rrqttcntlt,, to direct ttre olficial respondents, parl-ictrlar-ii respotrdent No. l0 to take action for demolition ol illegal ,,rnstruction carried out bv the unoificial respondcnt No.I ' .Lnc1 to pass such other order or orders in the interest of jr,r,t ce

2. Brief facts leading to the liling , , ,.he present $,rit petition are that the petitioner No.l clirinr Lt-r be the owner c,f lald admeasuring Ac.01-O7 gts tn Survey 2 No.246B at Rasooipalll, Village (earlier Mallaram Village), Bh eemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangara and that he is possessing a passbook for the said land vide Passbook No.T2 lO10l2O729 (e passbook as per Dharani). The petitioner No.2 is the younger son of petitioner No.1. It is submitte d that the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjovment of the subject land, but in the 1,ear 2O 18, the respondent No. I I encroached into the petitioners' land and started making construction, claiming it to be his land to an extent of Ac.Ol-2O gts., in Survey No.246 lA2. Further, the respondent No. I 1 did not obtain any permission for construction and therefore, the petitioner No. 1 immediately liled a complaint before the Panchayat Secretary i.e., responder-rt No.10 on 16.O8.20 18. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent No.10 stopped the illegal construction by oral instructions Hor,r,ever, the unofficial respondent No. 1 1, resumed construction activities in the year 2O2l . On enquiry as to how the construction is being made, the petitioners came to know that the official respondent No. 1 0 has given @/ t' 3 permissi()r-t to the unofficial respondent No.1 I t,r makc the construc,ion. Therefore, aggrieved by thC same, tl-rc petitione:- t'*o.2 filed represenl,arions dated 18 ,t .2O2 I ri ith responde nts No. 1O, 7 and 5. In responser llrereto, the respondenl No.5 directed the respondent N .10 to tarke actiotr, sper:ilically directing him to enquire : r 1 sr.rbrnit a detailed reirorL u,ithin three days. Hou'ever, r ) aclion has been tal<en by- the respondent No. IO. Th leafter, the petitrone. No.2 submitted a represent, I o1l clzrtecl

24.O7.2023 to respondent No.5 for cancellatj,,rr of burlding permission granted to unofficial responden r \o . 1 1 . l'he said represcntations were also submitted r() r 3spondcnts No.2, .l an<l B. It was also claimed that tlrr, unolficial respondcnt \o.11 has obta.ined permission I -audulentlt and that he obtained the copies of said docunr,:rrts through RTI lrom tlrt: office of respondent No. 1O. It i.r s161166 16^1 the documcnls submitted for building pr,, rission arc cre:rted for- the purpose of obtaining pc r n rission for construction and the said documents do not h:ii'e the dates on them Therefore, the petitioners made a r-,,presentation 4 dated 24.O7.2023, 1n resl)onse to q,hich, the respondent No.S issued a Memo dated 27.O7.2O23 to the respondent No.7 to enquire tnto the matter and file a detailed report Subsequentl.v, the Dis[rict Pancha'"'at Officer i.e., respondent No.5 vide Memo dated 04.O8.2O23, instructed respondent No.6 to enquire into the matter and file a detailed report and consequent thereto, notices were issued to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent and the official respondents directed for survev of agricultural 1ands. Consequent to the Memo dated O4.O8.2O23, the respondent No.6 conducted an enquiry at the location of construction of the unofficial respondent No. 1 1 and vide R.C.No.78/A2 12023, dated 19.O9.2023, the respondent No.6 observed that 1)process of issuing sanction orders for House Permission r.r'as done against Rules & Regulations; 2)The Panchayat Secretary i.e., official respondent No.1O \ ras negligent in not putting date on house construction permission Letter; 3)No Nala Conversion took place for the Agricultural Larrd in the said Survey Number i.e., Survey No.246; 4)permission was never applied through online mode; 5)No Registration or Link Documents were submitted; -:'']] ia-ii'r- r:; 5 6)Construction Permission Letter and r\pplication Documents File r,lras not maintained; 7)The Panchayat Secretary i.e., official lespondent No. 1O clicl not considered objections of the pe r t oners vide complaint dated 18.06.2018 and failed to imp :rnent order of Distric- Panchayat Officer i.e., official respon,l:nt No.5; B)Tl-re name of the unofficial respondcrrl No.1 1 was not in Ta:< Demzu-td Register from 2O18 to 2024 9)The unoflicial rcspondent No.1 I coulc rrot submit any documents regarding the orvnership.

3. Orr the basis of the above rcport, the respondent h'o.5 issued a Memo dated '.)1.11.2023 carcellinll the construction permission of t' rt: unofficierl respondent No.11 alid directed the Partchayat :iecretary to take necr:ssary action against the same. Fttrtl'er, on the very sam e day, based on the complaint of t l'Lil unofficial respondent No.11, the District Panchayat Ofl'<:er i.e., the respondent No.5 also issued another -\lemo dated

01.71 .20'23 directing the Mandal Surveyor to conduct a survey and determine the boundaries and t hc unofficial respondent No.11 was informed that the matter of ownership is a Civil dispute and therefore, he has to go to Civil Court for adjudication. Since no action \\.as taken by the respcndent No. 10 subsequent to the cance lation of the 6 building permission of unofficial respondent No. I 1, vide orders of the respondent No.S dated 01.1,1.2023, this u.rit petition has been filed

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5, 1 0 ald I t have hled their respective counter affidavits. The petitioner No.2 has argued the matter as a party in person and has reiterated the submissions made in the '"r,rit alfidavit and has dras,n the attention of this Court to the documents referred to therein. -"r,hich are hled along with the r.,r,rit affidavit.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appealing for the respondent No.5, in his counter affidavit has con ftrmed about the compiaints received from the petitioners about the illegai construction being made by the unofficial respondent No.1 1 and aiso that the petitioner No.2 has submitted a representation dated 24.O2 .2023 to the District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakoncla, for cancellation of the building permission, which \,l,as obtained illegally and that the same was forwarded to the Mandal Panchayat Officer, MPP Bheemadevarapally, for t---., H!*1.:'+', 7 enquiry. It is further submitted that the ( lo mmissioner a1so, vlce Memo dated 28.07.2023, had firrrr:arded the represcntation oI the pctitioner for enquiry zrir,:l necessary action. 'lhereafter, the unofficial responden: No.11 has submitted a representation dated ll.OB.2O2:. claiming to be the orvner of the subject property in Surver )'1o.246. The said representation also u,as forwarded to ,.he District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakonda and an irrquiry u,as directed to bc made. it is submitted that . he Drstrict Parchayat Ollicer has submitted a report datr:11 19.O9.2O23 and the contents have already been repro<l r-r ced in the paras above and therefore, on the basis of th, said report, the District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakonda. 1'ad directed the respondent No. 10 to tzrl<e action for cance,ll.rtion of the house construction permission. It is submitt. cl that there was also a direction to conduct a survev and ci :rnarcate the boundaries and the issue of ownership righti; of land was directed to get adjudicated by the parties in thr-. Civil Court. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2's r,- presentation dated 11.12.2023 for demoiition of illegai conr;truction was E received and vide Memo dated 20.12.2023, the respondent No.lO itas directed to take necessalr action against the illegal construction and that a notice has accordinglv been issued on 05.01 .2024 to the unof'ficial respondent No.1 I , rvho submitted an explanation on lO.Ol .2024 . It is submitted that as the vvrit petition is nou, pending belore this Court, the respondent No.10 has not taken any action for demolition of the illegal construction

6. Learned Standing counsel appearing lor tl-re respondent No. I 0, in his counter affidavit, has recited the sequcnce of events as stated by the respondent No.5 ald it is further sllbmitted that the unofficial respondent has submitted relevant documents and that the respondent No. 10 has fonvarded the same to the District Panchayat Ollicer for further instructions.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No. I 1, in his counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petitioners are guilty of playing fraud on the Court and that they have suppressed vital arrd material documents and therefore, they have not approached this #:,7r' 9 Court with cle an hemds. It is submitted that oli;.inal1,r,, onc Sri.Veera zrh, u'zrs the ou,ncr and pattedar anrJ I rssessor r.lf land adncirsuring Ac.04 07 gts., in Sun'cr No.2.16 zrt Rasoolpatly Village (earlier Mallararr \riilage), Bheemadeviupallc Mandal, Har-ramkonda Distr ,( t zrnd after the deatlr of Sri. Veeraiah in tl-re year 197 2 . ris son by name Sr-i.Clhada Narsi Reddy, inherited I re subject property ancl his natne \\ as also mutated in tlre revenue records. It is submitted thiit thereerfter, thcre i',t-e disputes between Lh e Sri. Chada N arsr Redd1, zrnd fr is relative Sri.Chada Raji Redd1, and upon settlernenr, il're subject property fell to the share of Sri.Chada Raji Rcc.dy, though the rever: lre records reflected the nante ol- Sr; , hacla Narsi Reddy arj ()urner / pattedar and possessor of rhe subject property in tl-re Pahani lor thc year 1990-199 I r -r'rd that on

05. 10.19'lO. the father of respondent No. I 1, p .u chzrsed the subject property for a consideration .h.rough an unregistered sale deed (sacla bainama) and r lr;rt the said document rvas executed by both Sri.Chada \arsi Reddy and Sri.Chada Ra.yi Reddy and that the f ,,trer of the l ) EMEi: a.: _" 1() unofficiai respondent No. 1 1 's name \vas re corde d in the Pahari's {br the years 1990-9 l, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995-

96. It is further submitted that the unofficial respondenI No.1 t had submitted an application under RTI Act on

19.O8.2O21 to furnish the information and documents pertainir-rg to the transfer of patta in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of Survev No.246 and in response to the same, the olfice of the Thasildar has furnished a repl1. datcd O3.09.202 1 stating that the file pertaining to the transfer of patta in favour of petitioner No.1 is not found, but subsequently after a lot of persuasion, the record was furnished. It is stated that in the Pahani for the year 1998 99, the father of unofficial respondent No.11 was shown as Pattedar and possessor in respect of Ac.03-00 gts., of land, q,hile his father's vendor i.e., Sri Chada Narsi Reddy, was shou'n as Patteda-r and Possessor of land admeasuring Ac.01 O7 gts., and that this u,as due to the illiteracy of the father of the unofficial respondent No. 1 1 . It is stated that amendments in the Pahani for the year 1998-99 was made behind the back ol the unofficial respondent No.11 and l -,:@{ I I i , 11 therefore, it is not binding on them. It is stirtr:d that the name of the pctitioner No.1 ',r'as incorporatr'r its Pattedar and Poss;essor of lanrl admeasnring Ac.0 1 -() ,3ts., in the place of Sri Chada Narsi Reddv and Pahani's irr the years 2OO7-O8, 200q 10, 20l0 11 and after r-.'reiving the documer.ts from the Tahsildar in tl-re vc.r:r' 2021, the responde nt No.l I has approachcd the offir:c ol Tatrsildar BheemartevaraPal'li, Lo rectily the anomalr-. I.r r thc same has not been czrrried out so far. It is subnritt,rd that the unofficiaI respondent No.11 has obtained Jrr: rrrission ernd has constructed the house and he is in peacr:I I possession of the sa.me. It is further stated that he hacl .t bmitted al applicaticn to thc Tahsildhar for convcrsion ri .rgricultural lald to :ron-agricultural land ar-rd vide Pro<:c :rlings dated

11.12.2C23, the Nala conversion has been llowed. [t is submitted that on the dav on u,hich rhe oflicial respondr:nts communicatecl about the cancclr;Ltion of the construction permission, a direction lvas alsr rliver-r to the respondr:nt No.5 to conduct a survey ald r :termine the t2 boundaries and the action is vet to be taken on the said direct ion

8. Lcarned counsel lbr the unofficial respondent No.1l has placed reliancc on the Ibllou,ing judgments in support of the foilorving propositions: I . The decisior-r of this Court in the case of A.Ramesh v. The State of Telanganal, lor the proposition that "Appeal would lie aqainst the Order qrantinq Building Permission before the Appellant Authoity under Section. 121 of Panchag at Raj Act i.e., Distict Collector, but not a Wit Petition Disputed Questions of Title" .

2. [n the case of Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of Indiaz and Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCOI3, for the proposition that "Disputed Questions of title cannot be adjudicated in a Wit Petition The parties are required to approoch the Competent Ciuil Court".

3. In the case o[ S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannatha, and also in thc case of A.V.Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradeshs, for the proposition that 'Fraud-Judgment or Decree obtained bg Fraud is a nullitg - I w.P.No-29904 of 202.1, dt. I9. i I 2024 2 1952 SCc onlrnc sC 39 {5.,) \ 3 i2o1s) 1 scc 201 \..(r99.rr r scc 1 s (2007) 1 scc 221 qfgtF, '.;. -/ 13 it can Lte challenged in antt Court euen ,t collctteral proceedir,,gs Finality of Litigatiort-"

9. lJaving regard to thc rival contelt'- rts arncl the material on record, this Court linds that the l,r. itioners as ',r,e11 as the unofficial respondent No. 11 are r:lrL.ming to bc the or.r,ne rs of Ac.0I-07 gts., in Survel, No_2.,trr Wl-rilc the petitioner-s claim to be thc owner in Survcy N ,.246/8, the unofficial respondent No. I I is claiming to br: rLe or.r,ner in Survey No.2461A2. It is an admitted fact thal :-e trnoflicial respondent No.11 started construction in tl.,' vear 2018 without obtaining any permission anrl that the construclion was stopped and it u,as in the 1'r,rr' 2O2l that the construction permission ',r'as granted in r,.,our ol [he unofficia. respondent No. 1 1 without ,,<ir-rg into consideration the petitioners' objection. It is ri i. -ealter that the petitioners have submittcd repres( i- :ation for cancellation of the building permission ancl r ire br_rilding permission has also been cancelled in the vt: Lr 2023. The respondent No.l1 has not f,rled any appeal . rgainst the same and has not challenged the cancellatior :rrder but it t4 1S only stated tha-t a survey t,as also directed to be conducted thereafter and thercfore, he is awaiting the survey to be conducted. However, this Court finds that the report of the respondent No.6 clearjv establishes that the construction permission u,as not granted accordance with law and that it is on the basis ol such report that the building permission has bcen calcelled b1, the respondent No.5. Consequrent thereto, the respondent No.10 ought to have taken action for demolition of the illegal structure Hor,r,ever, no action has been taken bv the respondent No.10. The only reason given by the respondent No. 1O is the pendency of this u,rit petition. Hos'ever, this Court observes that this writ petition is liled agairrst inaction on the part of the respondent No.lO and there is no stay or interim order granted by this Court in any proceedings against the demolition of the illegal structures 1O. As regards the or.r,nership and title of the subject property, the partics w-ould have to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication as advised by the respondent authorities. However, when the unofficial ., +.,_cj,. =G,F+T 15 rcspond3nl No. i L had made tl)e constrr I t.on u,ithollt pcrlllss.on ;rnd snbsequr:ntl-r,. the pe rmissior. 3rantc,cl ltas bccrr catcellc-d, it is the lroundcrr clutr ol- ll resporrclct'rt \o. lO L,r rirl<r. irction uquir.rsL srrch illr.gal .,)nslrll(.tioll lirccpr iirr thc issuance ol noLicc, the rcsp, ,t.cler.rt No. l0 has not tarl<cn arr-n' furtlrer. action thcrcon. I lol evt,r. us Lhcre is llso a drreclion l-l-\, thc: rcsltondcnt N,, : to co n d ltc't a sur\rc,\ ancl l'ix the boundanes, this Clourt. i Lhc illr(,r_(.st of justic:, dccnts it fit and pr-opcl. to dir.t.,. ltc N4i.rrrclal Surver or Lo r:r.rndr_rct the su r-\,c.-\. arrrcl lix lltt. 1., ,-tnclarie s of thc [)ropert\' ol' both lhe ltarlies tyithin a pct- )(.1 ol onc (1) mollth lr om tl-r<: date of rcccipt of a cop,r, O[ tl r:; lilc a corupliance reporl. .lhercaltcr, Lhc res;torrclent No.10 shall tal.lc actioll in accordance n.ith the. :lLrectior.rs ol respondent No..5. The Survey authoritics rr .;,. 1:rkc the ilssrstan( e of police, if reqrrireri oi-dcr ancl 1 l. Accordingly thc urrit petitior-r is zLl ,r,r erl. ,l,hcre shall ltc rro rtr-dt'r-tls to cosLs ! I i 1l @1.'a:..*:,' ' 'qt 16

12. Miscellaneours pctitior.rs, if ani', pcnding in this u rit petitron, shall stancl r']oscd. SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG A NT REGISTR S To, //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 1 The Principal Secretary. panchayat Raj and Rural E mployment, Secretariat, 2 The commissioner of panchayat, panchayat RaJ and Rurar Emorovment. Errrriv.,'lrrvrrr, State of Telangana, Himayath N'agar, HyderdbaO, i'eranganirgi

3. The Joint Commissioner of panchayat. panchayat Rai and Rural Emptoyment, State of Tetangana, Himayaih r.tagar. Hyd6iib",], T"i;;;";;:'"

4. The District Collector, Hanamkonda District,Telangana. 5. The District Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana. 6. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana. 7. The Mandal Panchayat officer, Bheemadevarpale Mandar, Hanamkonda District, Telangana. 8. The Mandal Parishad Hanamkonda District, Telangana. . Deveropment offrce, Bheemadevarpale Mandar,

9. The Gram Panchyat, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpa e Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangand. 10l1:^_illEhyat. Secretary, Rasootpaily, Bheemadevarpaile Mandat, HanamKonda District, Telangana.

11. One CC to SRt KANNEBOTNA PURNACHAND [pARTy_tN_pERSON] 12.One CC to M/s. R.K.CHlmA, Advocate tOpUCl 13.One CC to SRt K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT IOPUC] 14.Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

15. Two CD Copies BSR/BSK I I I I HIGH COI.IRT DATED: 1611012025 CC TODAY r,. I '-'l + i!.l I i.-) 1: 1'3 i1 2 * i-) l/ r.5:: ORDER WP.No.3987 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .{. $ 1rc