The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 44o,4 OF 2or24 ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 6712 and 67 13 to an extent of Ac.O-22 guntas at Tummanpally Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District. Subsequently, the said lands were converted into non-agricultural lands by the competent authorit5r vide Proceedings dated 2O.O7.2023. With an intention to establish a Rice Mill on the aforesaid land, they submitted an Application to the 2nd Respondent, who vide Proceedings dated

04.1O.2023, granted permission for the construction of the Rice Mill over the said conveited lands. It is stated, to extend the proposed Rice Mill construction, they purchased adjacent lands in Surwey No.67/3/4 admeasuring Ac.O-12. guntds and also Ac.O.O9 Sultas in Survey 'No.67/5/+lZ which were also converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use vide Proceedings dated 02.11.2023 and O9.11.2023 respectively. Thereafter, are stated to have submitted a Common Application Form seeking permission for building construction and simultaneously sought permission for power supply through the TS-iPass oru line system. \ # 2

1. 1. U nder the influence of Respondent No.8, the District Tou,n and Country Planning Officer issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.11 -2023, alleging that Petitioners qncroached t-rpon the land belonging to Respondent No.8 and was undertaking construction in violation of building rules. Petitioners are stated to have submitted detaiied reply on

22.LL.2O23, denying all the allegations contained in the said Show Causr: Notice. Petitioner submitted F-Line Application dated 20.11.2023 seeking to conduct survey and demarcation of their lands, pursuant to which, the Mandal Surveyor scheduled survey of Survey No.67 on 15.12.2:023, however, Respondent No.8 failed to appear at the site; so also to another notice. L.2. While So, when Panchayat Raj Officials were interfering with their construction activities, Petitioners filed Writ Petiti<;n No. 33852 of 2023, wherein this Court] vide order dated 14.L2.2O'23, directed Respondents not to interfere with construction activities being carried out by Petitioners over the property'. lSubsequently, Respondent No.8 again lodged a complaint dated 24.01.2024 only to harass and obstruct Petitioners' legitimate business operations. According to petitioners. official Respondents, being statutory atrthorities, are duty-boun<l to consider and process the on line TS-iPass 3 A Common Application Form dated 04.LL.2O23 for power supply to the Rice Mill. The deliberate inaction is illegal and arbitrary.

1.3. Petitioners further contend that the official Respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate issues relating to title or ownership over the subject propertY, os those are matters for the competent civil court to decide. Refusal to process the Application on account of alleged title disputes amounts to an excess of jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. The 5tr Respondent - Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), stating that Petitioner's Application for power suppty was duly received, processed, and accepted by them; after verification, they sanctioned power supply estimate vide Estimate No.E-2O23-9O-04-L2-Ol-O22- Pursuant to the said sanction, required payments were made through two separate Demand Drafts dated 09.11 .2023 for Rs.4,75, L2O I - and another dated 09. 1 1 .2023 for Rs.35 ,99O / -- Upon such payment, necessary departmental work pertaining to the said power supply connection was initiated; work has been completed up to 7Oo/o while the balance work remains pending.

2.t. While so, it is ",&, complaint from the 8th Respondent alleging that Petitioners the Sft Respondent received a 4 \i i i \i -{ encroached upon their land, hence, requested that no power supply be provided to them and that the works already executed by the Deperrtment be removed. Though the Department had .duly considered Petitioner's Application and sanctioned the estimate, it subsequently came to know that serious disputes existed between Petitioner and the 8e Respondent regarding identification of the land. Therefore, the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Sangareddy District issued notice to Petitioner proposing cancellation of permission earlier granted; Petitioner submitted an explanation and the matter is still pending. It is stated, completion of remaining work and supply of power at this stage would cause financial loss to the Department, hence, they undertake to provide power supply only in accordance with law after the dispute between Petitioner and the 8*, Respondent is resolved and the Distriit tor rr, ".rd Country Planning Oflicer, Sangareddy District, passes a final decision. Llntil then, the Petitioner is not entitled to a power supply connection to his premises

3. The 8th Respondent at the outset stated that petitioners are not entitled to file or maintain the present writ Petition, as they have no subsisting rights, title, or interest in the subject property. Petitioner No. 2 has already alienated the property through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 5 654 of 2024 dated 30.01 .2024 in favour of one Irfan S/o. Pasha Miya. Consequently, petitioners have no subsisting interest or loans standi to continue the present proceedings. It is further I- stated that petitioner No. 1 is only a proprietary concern of petitioner No. 2, who is the proprietor of M/s Arqam lndustries, and hence both are one and the same entity under Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the Sth Respondent contends that petitioners cannot be shown separately in the cause title.

3.1. It is also stated, petitioners are not entitled to any power supply connection for their proposed Rice Mill, as the construction itself is illegal, unauthorized and beyond the scope of the construction permission granted. It is further stated that Telangana State Industrial Project Approval , and Self Certilication System (TS-iPASS) common Application dated

04.11 .2023 of petitioner was returned by the competent officials on 06.1L.2023, hence there is no pending application before the authorities for consideration. There is no record br mention of the date on which petitioner allegedly submitted the Application to the 2nd respondent. The proceedings dated O4.1O.2O23 granting permission for construction were issued only in respect of land admeasuring Ac. O.22 gurntas situated in Survey Nos. G 6 .j 67 lE and 67 1AAS of Tummanpally Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District, for a proposed built-up area of

789.38 square meters. Even before applying for construction permission or any approval was granted, petitioner commenced illegal and unauthorized construction by encroaching upon a portion of the 8th Respondent's land. on noticing the encroachment, he l-rled a complaint dated 28.08.2023 under the "Prajavani" grievance mechanism, bearing complaint receipt no.

6674. This was followed by subsequent complaints dated O8.Og.2023. rI.Og.2023,2l.Og.2023, and gO-Og.2023, addressed to the District Town and Country Planning Officer (DTCPO). Pursuant to these complaints, the District Panchayat Officer (DPO) issued a notice to the Gram Panchayat directing immediate action against the unauthorized construction. Subsequently, on 05.10.2023, the DPO instructed necessary a steps to be taken in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 67 of the panchayat Raj Department dated 26.02.2002 and Section 144 of the Tela.ngana Panchayat Raj Act,2018. Since no action was taken by the officials despite repeated representations, the Sth Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 29591 of 2023, during the pendency of which, pursuant to the observations made by this Court, he submitted representation dated 2O.LO.2O23 to the DTCPC), DPO, and Gram Panchayat requesting prompt and 7 appropriate action. In response, the Mandal Parishad Officer issued proceedings dated 2o.1o.2o23 recording specific lindings that petitioners had carried out illegal construction by way of encroachment. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Officer, tlrrough proceeding dated 27.LO.2O23, directed the Gram Panchayat to demolish the illegal structures and submit a compliance report- tt is also stated, multiple notices were issued to petitioners by the Gram Panchayat on 09.O9.2023, O8.1O.2023, 21.LO.2023, and 28.LO.2O23, ultimately culminating in a final notice dated 31.LO.2O23 directing stoppage of illegal construction. However, they disregarded these orders, leading to a demolition proceeding dated o1.11.2023.

3.2. It is stated, during this period, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 33OOO of 2023 seeking a directionl to official respondents not to interfere with their construction activities and to consider the TS-iPASS Application dated 04.11 .2023, however, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn up.on receipt of the notice dated 16.11 .2023, seeking liberty to challenge the said notice separately. Contrary thereto, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 33852 of 2023 without challenging the said notice. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the official respondents to conduct an enquiry in terms of letter dated 8 .l I I i \l \I\

16.11 .2023 in the presence of both the parties, providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders under law within one month. Subsequent to the said direction, .the District Panchayat Ofhcer passed the order dated L9.O9.2O24 directing demolition of the illegal constructions raised by petitioners in view of the findings that construction was carried out in violation of technical approvals granted by the DTCPO, Sangareddy. Petitioners thereafter l-rled Writ Petition No. 289L2 of 2024 challenging the said order dated L9.O9.2024, which, acc<lrding to the 8th Respondent is not maintainable as the impugned order suffers from neither illegality nor procedural irregularity and warrants no interference.

3.3. The 8th Respondent further states that petitioners initially purchased Ac. O.22 gntas in Survey Nos. 67/E and 67 lAA3 situated at Tummanpally Village. .lh"r""".rg"- Mandal, Sangareddy District, through registered sale deed dated

18.07.2023 bearing document no. I57I of 2023; constrirction permission was granted on 04.lO.2O23 for the said land only, permitting construction over 789.38 sq. mts. with a maximum height of 12 meters. However, even prior to this permission, from August 2023 itself, petitioners commenced construction and encroached into a portion of the 8tt' Respondent's adjoining land measuring Ac. O.1 1 guntas, carrying out illegal 9 a construction in deviation from the sanctioned plan. This prompted issuance of a final demolition notice dated

31.10.2023. lt is also stated, with a mala fide intent, petitioners subsequently purchased adjoining lands-Ac. O.l2 guntas on

30.10.2023 (one day before the demolition notice) and Ac. O.09 guntas on O7.11.2O23-and got them converted into non- agricultural lands under proceedings dated O2.L1.2O23 and

09.11 .2023. Thereafter, they made a fresh TS-IPASS Application dated 04.11 .2023.

3.4. The said Application was returned on 06.11.2023 itself with queries, noting that construction permission for the same proposal had already been issued on 04. LO.2O23, hence a fresh proposal could not be entertained without clarification. It is stated, the 8ttt Respondent obtained this information from the office of the 2nd Respondent on 26.LO.2O24 af&r seeking information officially. Thus, the Applicdtion dated 04.11 .2023 was already returned and not pending consideration. Moreover, no Application for construction permission or power connection can be considered when the underlying construction is illegal and unauthorized. It is further stated, the land purchased subsequently by petitioners lies adjacent to Ac. O.22 guntas originally purchased but towards the Eastern side, whereas the encroachment has been -g[. towards the Southerl sidg of th9 __* I I Ii \ l0 said Ac. O.22 guntas, extending into Ac. 0.11 guntas of the 8th Respondent's land. Therefore, petitioner's subsequent purchases have no bearing on the encroachment issue. It is also contended that construction exceeded the permitted scope and deviated from the sanctioned plan, violating both sl-atutory and technical conditions. There is no provision either under G.O. Ms. No. 168 or under TS-iPASS framework to regularize or grant permission for "extension" of an already completed c;onstruction, particularly when such construction is illegal etnd involves encroachment of third-party property. Thus, the entire construction is liable for demolition, and the petitioner deserves no indulgence.

3.5. [t is stated, F-line Application dated 2O.1I.2O23 and the notice issued by the Mandal Surveyor dated 09.12.2023 are irrelevant to the present Writ Petition. A =r*"-rtwas already conducted on 30.12.2023, and a report wa.s submitted demarcating Survey No. 67, hrence any new sllrvey would not change the factual position. He has also lodged FIR No. 24 of 2024, at Police Station, Jharasangaffi, Sangareddv District, for offences .r.rd.fr"ctions 441, 447, 48g and 5O6 IPC. read with Section 156(3) Cr.PC. and the said case is pending.

4. Heard Sri K.S. Suneel, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL and Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the Sth respondent.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, it is to be seen there are multiple serious disputes regarding title, boundary and possession of subject property between Petitioners and the Sft Respondent, as is evident from the series of complaints, notices and proceedings culminating in demolition order dated 19.O9.2024. Moreover, the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Sangareddy District, being the competent authority, is already seized of the matter under Lr.No.169l2O23lDfCPOISRD. Hence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition for a direction to provide power supply cannot be granted in view of the pending dispute and the subsisting orders of the concerned authorities.

6. It is settled that supply of electricity otr processing of industrial applications under TS-iPass framework pre- supposes lawful possession and valid permissions. When construction itself is under challenge and demolition orders exist, Petitioners cannot seek mandamus directing the authorities to provide power supply. The authorities have acted cautiously and have undertaken to process the Application only after final decision of thffieetent planning authorit5r. Such action cannolbe termed arbitrary or illegal. \ryJ.. 12 \l '\\_ \i j ...1 I

7. Further, the 8ft respondent filed the Memo dated

23.IO.2O25 stating that writ petitioner had sold property in favour of one Irfan even before filing the Writ Petition under a sale deed bearing Document No. 654 of 2024 dated 3O.01 .2024, as such the Writ Petition could not have been l-rled. It is further stated, subsequently, the said Irfan has sold the property in favour of one Mashetty Dhanalakshmi under registered sale deed bearing document No. 8457 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024; the property assessment was obtained in the name of the said purchaser by order dated L2.O9.2O25 at the inst.an<;e of the 8th respondent, thus there is absolutely no subsisting interest for pursuing the Writ Petition. In support of the said contention, the Sft respondent liled the documents.

8. Considering the totality of circumslances, this Court finds thrat TGSPDCL acted within jurisdiction and non- supply of power is a consequence of pending clisputes and statutory restrictions under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2OI8, G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002, ancl the technical permissions issued vide Proceedings dated 04.1O.2023. Since the subject construction, being under demolition orders, cannot be treated as a lawful structure for which a por6,er connection may be <iirected through a writ of mandamus. Petitioners' \ l3 grievance pertains to disputed facts involving encroachment, which are matters triable before the civil court:

9. It is worth noting that the Hon''lcle Supreme Court in RaJendra Kurnor Barjatga o. U.P. Aaas Eaam Vikd.s Parishgldr, in the larger public interest, issued directions in addition to the directives issued in Re: Directions in the matter of demolltion of sttttctures. Relevant for the purpose of this case are: (irr) All the necessary service connections, such as, trlectricity, " water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given bv the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion / occupation certificate. (") Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder I owner / occupant; and the oflicial, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion / occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission / licence to conduct any business / trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States /Union Territories in any unauthorised building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan land usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place land in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment". ' zozq SCc online SC 3767 f t t4

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court linds no merit in the prest:nt Writ Petition, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 l. costs-

12. Tht: Writ Petition is accordingly, clismissed. No Consccluently, the miscellaneous Applications, if zrny shall stand ciosed. t \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for th of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.S.SUNEEL, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to SRI PERI PRABHAKAR, Advocate (OPUC) T,wo CD Copies

2. 3. 4. 5. GJP WSA IF ES () tt i|0I 2025 * * HIGH COURT DATED:17 11112025 a' i i I I i i i ORDER WP.No.4404 of 2024 DISMISSING THE'W,P WITHOUT COSTS#Ir @ 1{ It