Y Sai Baba v. The State of Telangana

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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly, one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus, considering the in- action, on the Part of respondent No.4 to the writ Petition, to act on Petitioners representation, acknowledged by its authority daled 3011212024, as of illegal, u nconstitutional, dis-Paragraph to section 178 of Telangana lvlunicrpa lities act 2019, consequentially direct the respondent No.4 to act on Petitioners representation. I i i : IA NO i 1 0F 2025 Petition un(1,)'soction 151 CPC praying that in the circunstilnces stated in the affidavit fired i. sLpport of the petition, the High court m,ry be pleased to direct the respor-d(,'tt No.4, not to carry, any re-construction, on thr,: land falling in survey No. 180 i\.measuring to an extent of 1805 Square Yard, addressed as Municipal House h,r3rirrg No.6-98 (Old H. No.5-100 and 6-29) lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition un(1 :' S()clion 151 CPC praying that in the circu rnsti'rnces stated in the affidavit fired rr sLrpport of the petition, the High Court rn ay be pleased to direct the respcrrl,:nt No.3, to Place the true copy of the t-etter/Requisition, Placed by resDonc( nt No.5, Dated 21121 2024, before this Hcrncrzrble High court and Pursuant lo sL( h report, take the action, for enabling this re sprlndent No.5 to Mislead thrs Horr,r'able High court( which is nothing but rrn lmpeding the administration ol J - stice and their act is Nothing but an act of Per ury conducted by respondent Nc 1 and 5, by being in tandom, before this Hon()raole High court, to lmpress this u)rorable High court in obtained the order in VV.F'.NO 1022 OF 2O25 and thert: ol o t:ake the action, take against them. Counsel for the Pelitioner : SRI M.RATHAN SINGH Counsel for the Fespondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the R(rspondent No.2&3 : ASST.GP FOR REVENUt: Counsel for the Fe;pondent No.4 : SRI KRISHNA MARAGANI Counsel for the F:er;pondent No.5 : '- The Court made thr-. following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRITPETIT ION N0.4329 ot 2025 ORDER: 'i Heard leamed counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing ibr 2nd and 3d respondents and Sri Krishna Maragani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4'h respondent. 2 Both petitioner and 5'h respondent are claiming that they are owners and possessors of H.No.6-98 (Okl H.No.5_ 100 and 6-2e) ln Survey No.l80/A situated at Nadergul Village, Badangpet Municipality. Petitioner had filed a suir vide O.S.No.797 of 2020 against 5tr' responclent seeking par-tition and separate possession. The said suit is pending and there is no interim order granted in his favour

3. According to petitioner, during penclcncy of rhe said suit, 5'h respondent has constructed buildingishutters in the subjcct property without obtaining prior pcrmission liorn 4'h respondent. It is an unautholizcd construction. Therefbre, he has submitted a representation datcd 20.01.1024 to 2 {L, J \r P l{0., 329 of 2025 4th resp,.-)l ( I 3l1t with a request to take actiorL against 5'h respot r,l :nt. On receipt of the said representation' 4'n responc.nt passed a speaking order dated 22'10'2024 directing I tr respondent to remove the uniLut rorized constmclit,'r rvithin seven (7) days. Even then. 5th roslrondent did not rorl )vLr the said unauthorized construction 'Ih':refore, petitior,cl I rs :;ubrnitted a representation dated l'7 12"''024 to 4'l' resp,.:,r r1:nt with a request to take action agaLnst 5'r' responrlcnl l)ursuant to speaking order dated D-'10'2024' Hower e t. tl e satne was not considered. Therefore, he l'as filed a Writ ['c'ri,rtr yrrlc W.P.No.36024 of 2024. Vide crdt:r dated

23.11.:l(ll: tl'is Courl disposed of the said S/rit Petition rcspondent to consider represental io I dated directinu I ,, 1-r lr)l- itrhnritted by petitioner and take futthr:r steps pursuanr , r ';peaking order dated 22J0'2024 str ictly in accorcla rt,'rvitlt law, within four (4) weeks from rhe'date of rcccil'rt ,'1 rrtot-l-v- ol-the said order'

4. '[ rtrr allct.. 5'r' respondent has filed a Writ Pt:tir ion llrlc W,l'. \,r )l-l ol 2025 chatlenging the said speakirrg order 3 KL,.' W P No a32S ol2025 dated 22.10.2024. .ttide order dated 09.01.2025, this Courr suspended the said speaking order dated 22.10.2024 on the ground that the speaking order impugned therein was not on consideration of explanation dated 25.09.2024 and permission obtained by 5th respondent from the then Gram panchayat, Nadergul. The said interim order is extended further. The said Writ Petition is pending.

5. While the matter stood thus, petitioner has submitted a representation dated30.12.2024 to 3d and 4,h respondents with a request to take action against 5th respondent who is rnaking construction illegally. The same was not considered. Therefbre, he has filed the present Writ petition seeking to declare the inaction of 4th respondent in taking action against 5'r' respondent with regard to his further construction. (r. Sri M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel fbr petitioner ',vould contend that 5th respondent has submitted lctter dated

02.12.2024 to 3'd respondent stating that he has nitt obtained perurission for construction of 7 shops out ol l-i strops. However, in Writ Petition No.l022 of 2025, -5,r, r.esponclcnt has 4 KL, J LF I,Jo. 329 ot 2025 submitted rat he has obtained building permit order' fiom the then (lrarr l)anchayat, Nadergul, and has suomitted explanatirr r dated 25.09.2024, but, the same wiN not considercd i",lii [e passing speaking order dated 22.1r).2024 by 4'r' respon<l r rt. The said subrnissions made by 5th r:s1',ondent were notc( I'v this Court while passing the interim o:dt:'r dated

09.01.20.1:; i'r the said Writ Petition. Learned ccurrsel for petitionet, n ustructions, submitted that the petitioner has already l-il:< v';rcate application in the said Writ Petitton and the sanrc lr perrding. The sarne was confirmed by the learned counscl ll.r ' . i' ' , cspondent.

7. Wlit Pclition No.206U7 of 2019 filed b)' p(:tltloner against rcrl on,.lcrtt Nos.4 and 5 to declare the ina<:tion of 4tr' respon,l , nt 'n takillg action against 5th respondent a,; illegal is pendirrg :rrr1her. Writ Petition No.l022 of 2025 as well as vacate pcti r,n tilccl by petitioner in the said Writ Petition is also pen'li'rl. -l herclirrc. pctitioner has to pursue albresraid two Writ Pclit o rs. [)ur-ing pendency of the said Writ I'etitrons. he cannol srr l rit thc irlirrcsaid rcpresentation dated 30. 2.2024 5 KL. J W.P.No.4329 of 2025 and lile the present Writ petition alleging non_consideratioh of the said representation.

8. In the light of the above, this Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is granted to petitioner to take all the contentions, which he has raised in the present Writ Petition, in Writ petition Nos.l022 of 2025 and, 20687 ol20l9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closcd. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLTKARJUNA R ASSISTANT REGISTR AO A ECTION OFFICER Telangana, l-tyderabad '58:I[3Hfl .::g"Ji%i:N!:"i"1'sH{Hglg",l$l3.YlYJ:B?:T0',"*', 2. The Prrnciple secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings state of 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy' Ranga Reddy District' 4. The commissioner Badangpet' Municipal Corporation' Badangpet Ranga : Reddy Distriot One CC to SRI M.RATHAN SINGH' Advocate' [OPUC] Two CCs ro GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telanqana at Telangana. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI KRISHNA MARAGANI' Advocate' [OPUC] Two CD CoPies BSK GJP E 6 7 8 s HIGH COURT DATED:141A212025 l ORDER WP.No.4329 ot 2025 .4'. ' .' , ,7 . )' IAr 6 l; \t\.t9- i (t r's'... -:i_ P a + 2[6 ,-_() .L a, DISPOSING Of: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v 1i /e