Dachepally Narender v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 of all further proceedings pursuant to notices Nos. GP/08/2025 dI. 20-1-2025 and GPl1Ol2O25 dl. 27-1-2025 issued by the 6'1'1 respondent by directing the respondents not to interfere /demolish the structures in Plot No. 126, 1251A in Sy.No. 162/4 situated at lndresham village Patancheru l\,4andal, Sanga Reddy district bounded by North- Plot No. 94, South- Plot No. 92, East- Plot No. 100, West- 30 feet wide road pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Between Smt. Kakarla Swathi, W/o Kakarla Siva Prasad, Aged about 38 years, Occ- House wife R/o Flat No.302 SVV heights Road, No.4, Bajajinagar, Nizampet, Medchal- tValkajgiri District. .....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.7 AND 1 Dachepally Narender, S/o Late Venkataiah, aged 56 years, Occ; Business, Fl/o Plot No. 302, Navyas Aditya Enclave, Saptagiri colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTM/RIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector (Pts), Sanga Reddy district, Sanga Reddy. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Sanga Reddy District, Sanga Reddy. 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Sanga Reddy Sanga Reddy District.

6. The Mandal, Parishad Development Officer, Patancheru l\ilandal, Sanga Reddy District.

7. The Indresham Grampanchayath, Rep.by its Secretary, lndresham village Patancheru [Vlandal, Sanga Reddy District. B. Smt.B.Vijaya, Wo. Manthena Srinivas Kumar, Occ House wife, Fl/o H.No. 2- 23- 329, Opp- JNTU Near Ramalayam Temple, HMT Hills, Kukatpally, Hyderabad District. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.l to 6 & 8 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 vacate the lnterim Status-quo Order dated : 03.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4235 of 2025. |.A.NO:3 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 be pleased to permit me to amend the above Writ Petition as sought for by the above. lf I am not permitted to amend the above Writ Petition as sought for by the above, I will be put to heavy irreparable loss. On the other hand, if I am permitted to amend the above WRIT PETITION as sought for by the above, no loss or prejudice will be caused to other side. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAVI MOTHUKUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI K.SANKARAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : M/s J.MADHAVI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO. 4235 0F 2025 ORDER: ln this rvrit pelition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notices Nos.GP/08/2O25 dated

20.O1..2025 and GP/ 1Ol2025 dated 27.O1 .2025 issued by the respondent No.6 lor removal of structures in PIot Nos. 126, 125/A in Survcy No.162/A, situated at Indresham village, Patancheru l\{andal, Sanga Reddy District, bounded by North- Plot No.94, South Plot No.92, trast- Plot No.100, West 30 feet r,i icle road as illcgal, arbitrary, conLrary to law and in violation of Grampanchal.ath Act and Rules and consequently to set aside the same and to pass other order or orders in the interest of justicc.

2. Brief lacLs Ieading to the hling of the present writ petition are Lhat the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of open Plot No.93, B-Block in Suney No.161/ 1, extent of 2O0 Sq.yards, situated at Royal Estate, Indresham Village, Palancheru Mandal, Medak District and the said plot was bounded b), North- Plot No.94, South- Plot No.92, trast- Plot No.100, West 30 leet wide road. The petitioner claims to have / '7 ,l r i I 2 purchased the same from one K.Bheem Rao, S/o.K.Balaiah for a valid sale consideration through a registered Doc.No.22131 /2013, dated 30.12.2013 and his pre-prcdecessor K.Bheem Rao, i.e., petitioner's vendor, had purchased the said open plot from one B.Srishailam, S/o.B.Shivaiah, through a registered sale deed Doc.no.29801/2006, dated 30.11.2006, u,ho had purchased the same from one M.Rajakumar, S/o.Subba Rao, through a registered sale deed Doc.No.19633 12005, dated 20.I2.2OO5. It is stated that the Raj Kumar had purchased the said plot lrom one Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Batchu Venkata Ramaiah, through a registered sale deed Doc.No.5377/ 2004, dated 24.O3.2OO4 and Lhe Said Dr. Batchu Ramesh Babu, had purchased from one T.Ajit Singh, S/o.Late T.Jairaj Singh through registered salc deed Doc.No.24OS of 1993, dated 03.08.1993. Thus, it can be seen that there has been several transactions in respect of the said plot and the petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot ever since from the date of purchase. It is stated that after mobilizing of the funds for construction of a house, the petitioner had approached the respondent No.6 for permission for construction and the respondent No.6 has granted the permission vide 3 Sl.No.50/GP/2022, dated 22.O3.2022. Subsequent to the construction being done, the house number was also allotted by thc respondent No.6 and the petitioner claims to be paying the property tax, e lecLricity charges, etc. IL is alleged lhat when the respondent No.7 tried to grab the plot of the petitioner, the petitioner has made a complaint before the patancheru police Station and the Police registered a case in Crime No.403 of 2024, under Sections 448, 427 of IPC and same is pending consideration. It is further alleged that the respondent No.7 and one Madagoni Chakrtrdhar Goud have created lake and bogus doc--uments and have titcd W.P.No.3O93 1 of 2a2l for taking action against construction being carried out by the writ petitioner by alleging that rt was illegal and unauthorized and the same u,as disposccl of at Lhe admission stage by this Court clirccting thc responderrrs No.5 and 6 to take appropriate action for removal of the unauLhorized constructions, after issuing notice to respondent No.7 thercin in accordance with law and accordingly, the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said nolices have not been served on the petitioner, but have been pasted on the wall of the property of the petitioner and thereforc, it cannot be considered as service of notice. 1 4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner furl"her submitted that in the original layout, the Plot of the petitioner is numbered as Plot No.93 and subsequently, another layout has been brough[ in shou'ing the said Plot as Plot. No.126 and the unofflcial respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land under the garb of the second layout.

4. At lhe time of hearing, basing on the arguments advanced on O1.05.2025, this Court had appointed AdvocaLc Commissioner to visit the site i.e., Plot No.93 in Survel' No. 162/1 and Ptot No.126 in Survey No.162/A of Indresam Viltage, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District on O6 O5'2025 in the presence of both the parties and to take measurements ol the respective plots as per the respective sale deeds of the parties and to submit a report before this Court on the next date of hearing. The Advocate Commissioner has accordingly, submitted a report on 09.06.2025.

5. The unofhcial respondent No.7 also filed a counter aflrdavit along with stay vacate petition on 27 .O3.2025 and the official respondents have filed a counter afltdavit on 23 '06 '2025 ' supporting the stand of the unofficial respondents. 5

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, rvhile reiterating the submissions made in the q-rit atfidavit, submitted that the unoificial respondents are claiming the property b), virtue of the ex-partc decree in O.S.No.37/2008. It is subrnirted that the defendant in the said suit was a dead person and in proof thereof, he has filed a copy of the original death certificate, rvhich shou,s that Kishan Lal, S/o.Brij Mohan Lat, died in the year 1998. It is submirrc(l that O.S.No.37 l2OOg \.as thus Illed againsL thc dcceasecl pcrson .rnd an ex-parte decree was oblained, on thc basis of which Lhc rcspondents arc trying to prove Lheir posscssion ovcr the propcrt].. Therefore. accordit]g to him the title of the respondents is not proved.

7. As regards the Advoca[e Commissioner,s report, the learned counsel for the pctitioner objected to the same, stating that ir is biased and one-sided and that the Advocate Commissioner Itas not r:onsidcrcd the submissions of the petitioncr or thc documents submitted by the petitioner for making the mezrsurements and therefore, the said report cannot be considered.

8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, however, submitted that they have purchased the property I 6 through an agreement of sale and have approached Civil Court for a decree and the Civil Court has held in favour of thc unolficial respondents, against which the wril- petitioner has hted the appeat and the same has also been dismissed. He submitted that the writ petitioner has not disclosed any of thesc facts in the writ petition and therefore, he has not come to thc Court with clcan hands and therefore, he does not deserve any relicf in the mattcr. He further submitted that there is only one Iayout and the respondents No.7 and 8 are the owners of thc Plot Nos.125 and 126 and it is the !\'rit petitioner who is trying to grab their property. He further submilted that Plot No.93 is allegedly measuring 200 sq.yards, whereas PIot Nos. 125 and 126 are measuring only 155.55 sq yards each and the Advocate Commissioner's report clearly proves that the two plots of 155 sq.yards each, are on site. Therefore, he seeks d:ismissal of the writ petition with costs. g. Having regard to the rival conlentions and the matcrial on record, this Court tinds that the ide ntity of the plot in question is the issue before this Court. In order to verify the samc, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the extent of land available on site along with 7 boundaries mentioned in respect of sale deeds. The Advocate Commissioner's report is infact, in favour of the unofficial respondents. Horvcver, it is noticed that thc petitioner is claiming ou.nersl'rip of the plot through registered sale deeds, whereas the unofficial respondents are referring to an agreement of sale and a suit for specihc performance which has been filcct allegedly against a dead persou and an ex-parte decree has been obtained. It is another issue that the said ex- parte decree has been conlirmed in the first appeal and the petitioner has filed a suil tbr setling aside the ex parte decree. When compared, boLh lhe layouts appeared to be in Survey No.162/1 and arc bounded by the roads i.e., Dhoulathabadhu road and Ramcswaram Banda road and the position of Plot Nos.93 and 126 also appear to be the same. The second layout appeared to be signed by the Panchayat Secretary on 30.O4 .2OO7 , whereas thc Iirst layout was signed by the Sarpanch in the year 1987. The first document was executed in favour of the pre-prcdccessor in lhe interesl of the petitioner is of 1993 by the GPA holder of Kishan Lat, S/o.Latc Brij Mohan Lal in favour of Dr.Batchu Ramcsh Babu, in the vear 1993 and it is a registered document i.e., Doc.No.2 4O5l 1993. The second document is also a registered document vide Doc.No.5377 l2OO4 -/ I 8 and the third document i-e., Doc.No. 19633/20O5 and thereafter, the Doc.No.22 131 l2Ol3. Therefore, the property has been transferred in thc name of the petitioner herein by virtue of the registered documents and the area is. shown as 200 Sq.yards.

10. The respondents No.7 and 8 seem to have acquired the property by virtue of the ex parLe judgment and decree in O.S.No.37/2008. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 20O8 against one Kishan Lal and an ex-parte decree has been obtained and Kishan Lal, as per the dcath certiltcate produced by the petitioner, died in the year 1998 itself- If the same is proved and the decree is sel aside , the respondents No.7 and 8 would not get valid title in the property. The petitioner has already hled a suit for setting aside the ex parte decree and the copies of the same are also filed, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8. Therefore, the documents of the respondents No.7 and 8 are very much dependent on the outcome ol the suit filed by lhe writ petitioner. The facts mentioned by the petrtioner as well as the respondents need verihcation. The respondent No.6 in its counter afhdavit had stated that it has followed due process of law and issued l i j t 9 notices dated 20.01.2025 and 27.O1.2025 and thereafter, demolished the illegal construction in compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3O93l 12024. Therefore, it appears that there is no structure in the site ar present. This Court thcrefore directs all the parties to maintain the S/afus-quo as on today till the identitt,of the plot is establishcd in the Civil Courl in [he suit hled by the writ petitioner for setLing asidc the ex-parte decree in O.S. No.37/ 2008. I 1. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pencling in this writ petition, shall stand closecl. /iTRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFlCER To

1. The Princip al Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Ru Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderaba d The District Collector (Pts), Sanga Reddy district, Sanga The District Panchayat Offi cer, Sanga Reddy district, Sanga Reddy The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Sang a Reddy Sanga ReddY District The Mandal, Parishad Development Officer, Patancheru l\,4andal, Sanga Reddy District. Reddy. 2 3 4 5

6. The Secretary, lndresham Grampanchayath, lndresham village Patancheru lopment Department Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

7. TWO CCS tO 6P FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPIVENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 8. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to SRI RAVI MOTHUKUR, Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to SRI K.SANKARAIAH, Advocate (OPUC) 1'1 . One CC to M/s J.I/IADHAVI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 ORDER WP.No.4235 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. lrlE s -4t 6 \io ( .aJ o o 3 0 JlJt ztfi r- I .d=t /-SD^ rCHE o, \t