High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide No.B,137112024 dated 2310112025 and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property i.e., from House/Building on Plot No. 219, in Survey Nos. 1 16, to 1 'l 8 and 1 36 to 143' admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards or 167.0 Sq. Meters, situated at Poppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without considering the explanation dated 27.01.2025 without issuing any notice whatsoever, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principle of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Notice vide No. 8,137112024 daled 2310112025 -------7 with the petitioner s possession in respect of House/Building on plot No. 219, in Survey Nos. 116, to 1'18 and 136 to 143, admeasuring 200 Sq. yards or 167.0 Sq. Meters, situated at Poppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHALID Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I //.' -_-.-----7.,/ HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3921 of 2025 ORDER: It is stated that the petitioner, along with one Mohammdd Zuber Mohiuddin, have jointly purchased Plot No.219 admeasuring 20O square yards in Sy.Nos. 116 to l18 and 136 to 143, situated at Poppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through registered sale deed bearing document No.516 of 2O2O, dated 16.01.2020. It is further stated that the petitioner's vendor and his predecessor-in-title are absolute owners having purchased the subject property under registered sale deeds. It is further I stated that after purchasing the subject property, the petitioner had obtained permission for construction of G+2 upper floors uide permit No.3128/ Wll2O2O10254, dated 06.04.2021. It is turther stated that the petitioner has also been remitting the property tax and other taxes payable to the local authorities. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities without taking into consideration that the petitioner has purchased the subject property through registered sale deed and the same is forming part of Plot No.219 in Sy.Nos. 116 to 118 and 136 to 143, issued the impugned notice exercising the powers under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 19O5, claiming that the property purchased by I 2 CVBR, J Wp_3921 2O25 the petitioner is forming part of Sy.No.146, which is Govemment \ land. 2- Considered the submissions of ttre leamed counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed ofat the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that soon after receipt of the impugned notice, the petitioner a,lso submitted an explanation, dated 2Z .Ol.2O2S, duly enclosing all the documents stating that the subject land where the petitioner has constructed the house is forming part of Sy.Nos.l16 to l1g and 136 to 143 and not in Sy.No.l46. The apprehension of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, without conducting any enquiry and without providing an opportunity to satisff the respondents that land where the constructions carried on by the petitioner does not forming part of Sy.No. 146, is taking hasty steps for removal of existing co-nstruction made by the petitioner over the subject property.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue has not disputed the issuance of the impugrred notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachrnent Act, 1905 and consequential submission of explanation by the petitioner to the said show-cause notice. ----=.. CVBR, J Wp_392t 2025

5. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.3 is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show-cause notice No.B/37LI2O24, dated 23 -O1.2O25 and in view of the dispute that petitioner's plot is not forming part of the Government land in Sy.No.146, conduct survey after issuaace of notice to the petitioner and after conducting survey, demarcation and localization of the lands in Sy.No.146 and the plot purchased by the petitioner as per the schedule propert5r and boundaries mentioned therein, if it is found that any of the Government land is being encroached by the petitioner, they will follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Raiendra Kumar Barjatga rrnd. another as. tI.P. Avas Eaam Vikas Parishod and. othersl and the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.27110 of 2024 and batch, dated 12.L1.2O24.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a seQuel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed tcivil Appea lNo. 14604 of 2o2q dated 17.12.2024 I SD/.A. SRINIVASA REODY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR \ /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5

6. PSK. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of Telanqana. i'#6T;i:iiil'c"llector, Ranga Reddy District'RangaReddv' Telansana' IVlandal Revenue officer' G;"e'p"i'M";A''r l'lq? Reddi District' Telangana ffietc' t,;'sCisnAr xnllto, Advocate [oPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OU Two CD CoPies T1 HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ORDER WP.No.3921 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS :.: ,J 2 llItl 2025 * ,(] t) /.sp,trc q