Bellamkonda Papa Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

6. Putty Laxmi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about. 48 years, Occ. Self-Employed, F/o Flat No.302, Suphala Homes, 4th Lane, Vijayapuri Colony, Gunturu. .,...RESPONDENTS 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 writ, direction or order more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia declaring the action of Respondent No.2 to 5 in not demolishing the illegal constructions made by the Respondent No.6 without permission from appropriate authority in the Petitioner's land in R.S.No.'165/1 to an extent of Ac.2-00 cts situated in Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to demolish the illegal constructions made by the Respondent No.6 without permission from appropriate authority in the Petitioner's land in R.S.No.165/1 to an extent of Ac.2-00 cts situated in Bhadrachalam, Bhad radriKothagudemin the interest of justice. l.A.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 restrain the Respondent No.6 illegally constructing in the Petitioner's land in R.S.No.165/1 to an extent of Ac.2-00 cts situated in Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem without permission from appropriate authority in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.5 : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 : Ms. DEVERA SAMHITHA The Court made the following ORDER .:4}:1!'{.1:!:!!-- i I I Ik THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEIrI ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.4558 OF 2025 This Writ Petition is liled declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 in not demolishing the illegal constructions made by respondent No.6 in the petitioner's land in R.S.No.165/ 1 to an extent of Ac.2-OO cts situated in Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District, without obtaining permission from appropriate authority, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents No.2 to 5 to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent No.6.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, appearing for respondent No.5 and Ms.Devera Samhitha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

3. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.2-OO cts in R.S.No.165/ 1 and it is submitted that respondent No.6 is interfering with the possession of his propert5r and has also constructed a house in the said property without his consent and without obtaining permission from respondent No.5. The petitioner is claiming to have made a representation on L'..'fi..- "i. *r '// -ra, a Yry 1

13.02.20'25 to respondent No.S for taking action against the iilegal construclions made by respondent No.6.

4. Respondent No.5 has filed counter afhdavil stating that taking into consideration the representation of thc petitioner dated 21.10.2024, he has visited the site and observed that respondent No.6 is making constructions over the said land without obtaining any building permission from the respondent-Gram panchayat. Therefore. a notice dated 21.1O.2024 was issued to rcspondent No.6 asking her to stop construction ancl also to obtain building permission from the respondenL Gram panchayat. It is stated that respondent No.6 has submitted her explanation on 23.10.2024 stating that she has constructed a farm building for the purpose of storing agricultural produce and therefore, it is exemptecl from taking building permission as per Rule 16 of the Telangana Gram Panchayal. Land Development (Layout & Building) Rulcs and G.O.Ms.No.67. However, according to respondent No.S under Section 2l2l of Panchyat Raj Act, 20 18, ,building, includes farm house also and for construction of the same, it is necessary to obtain building permission. 5 Respondent No.6 has also filed a counter affidavit stating that in view ol' G.O.Ms.No.6T, dated. 26.02.2002, exempted lrom obtaining building permission. a farm building is A copy of the said /,/ -J G.O. is also filed along with counter affidavit' She has aiso submitted that her explanation has to be considered in the lines of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.O2.2OO2 and also hled photographs ol the building to d.emonstrate that a small shed has been constructed for rearing cattle and therefore, it should be corisidered as a farm building. karned counsel for the petitioner f,rled reply afhdavit refuting 6. the said contentions and submittecl that photographs clearly demonstrate that the said building is being used for residence and that it is not a farm building for storage of water or for storing agricultural produce as claimed by the 6fr respondent He further submitted that since no building permission was obtained' the same cannot be permitted to exist. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed 7 . on record, this Court hnds that there appears to be civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No'6, both being siblings' Therefore, there seems to be counter and counter claim' The 6h respondent claims the subject land to be agricultural land and that she is running nursery in the said land from several years with valid license dated 18.08.2O22 issued by the Government All of these are undisputed and since the subject land is an agricultural iand' it would not tall within the jurisdiction of 5s respondent' Since the I I I I i I i I : \ '\F..-,.@ r\ 'r-ftx; \..

1.\ -4 6t' respondent is claiming that under Rule 16 o[ the Telangana Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.67, fartl:, builclings are exempted from taking permission and is also relying on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.1,3538 of 2024, this Court is of the opinion that all these factual aspects need verihcation and consideration by respondents No.4 and 5. Therefore, the Sfr respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the 61h respondent to the shou, cause notice, in the lines of G.O.Ms.No.67 and also taking into considerafion thc decision of this Court in W.P.No. 13538 of 2024 and thereafter, take a decision. Needless to mention that before taking a decision, the concerned parties should be given fair opportunrry.

8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of_ There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this wriL petition stand closed. t I i t i i I ' //TRUE COPY// SDi. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT OFFICER To

1. The principar secretary, Telangana at Hyderabad_ .panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, state of .,i:l,yifl :6??.!l'st"ffi ilf :{"tii&sfJ^?"J#11,?f 3. The District panchavrt oni.*,'Etljlaii"*ot agro"m 4. The D ivi s io na I pa n chayat Ofii".-r:'B;;:; ;; iri' vut 6ni '' l:a :;: zul;n ";;, ulx;r'3:*""=-'E:ffi1#fr,frii^*#,',,,1gffifr 7. One CC to SRt pt Nn _ 8. One CC to Ms. Dt 9.' 9. One CC to SRt K. il ;;E x;#lF'[aPi.X'ifl*i [?'ff g:1i' EVEL'PMENrHsh '.'H,llntesratedDistrict 'l0.Two CD Copies _ _ I i I I I I ! i I I I HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 310812025 I I t' 1|..E .:l ; al,\. 9 15 SEP 206 -t Or: c*t! ORDER WP.No.4568 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W,P WITHOUT COSTS. \,,