M/s. C.M. lnfra Developers v. 1. 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 a writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF' N/IANDAMUS, declaring the Action of the Respondents trying to remove compoundwallandshedsinthepetitionerplotpremisesPlotNo.666,66T'672 and 673 (each plot 200 sq yards) totally admeasuring 800 sq yards' or equivalent to668.88sq.mtrs,Sy.No.4g5PartandSl0Part,situatedatTurkayamjal RevenueVilage,AbdullapurmetMandal,underTurkayamjalMunicipality,Ranga ReddyDistrictwithoutfollowingdueprocedureoflawdespitepermissionas illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Art.14, 3OO.A of the constitution of lndia, and consequently direct Respondent No.2 and 3 not to remove the compound wall and sheds in the petitioner plot premises Plot No.666, 667, 672 and 673 (each plot 200 sq'yards) totally admeasuring 800 scl.yards, or equivalent to 668.88 sq.mtrs, in Sy.No.495 Part and 510 Pa(, situated at Turkayamjal Revenue Vilage, Abdullapurmet Mandal, under Turkayamjal tulunicipality, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affi.davit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent l\,t.2 and 3 not to remove the compound wall and sheds in the petitioner plot prerrrir;es Plot No.666, 667,672 and 673 (each pkrt 200 sq.yards) totally admeasuring i300 sq.yards, or equivalent to 668.88 sq.mtrs, in Sy.No.495 Part & 510 Part, situated at Turkayamjal Revenue Vilage, Abdullapurmet Mandal, under Turkayamjal ltllunicipality, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RAMESHWAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. I,IIKSHMAN IVRIT PETITION No.4632 oF 2o25 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.Rameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. I and Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that it is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot bearing Nos'666, 667 ' 672 and 673, admeasuring 2OO square yards each, in total admeasuring 8OO square yards, in Sy.Nos.495 part and 510 part, situated at Turkayamjal Revenue Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, within respondent No.2-Municipality, on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.11392 of 2024' dated 30.12.2024. lt is in the possession of the subject property. Even then, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to remove the compound wall and shed in the subject properly, without following the procedure laid down under the law. 2 Challenging; the said action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner Iited the present writ petition

3. Where:as, Mr.Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has produced written instructions, cf respondent No.2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner tLerein has frled O.S.No.29 of 2025 against one Mr.Md.Gouse, Pasha seeking declaration of title, declaration of sale deed obrained by Mr.Md.Gouse Pasha as null. and void and for perpretual injunction. Learned I Additional J'rnior Civil Judge, Rangzrreddy District at Hayathnagar, grantr:rl interim order restrzrining Mr.Md.Gouse Pasha from alienating the subject property. The said suit is pending and the said interim order is subsisting. Mr.Md.Gouse Pasha has; also filed O.S.No.35 ol 2025 against the petitioner herein seeking perpetual injrrnction. The said suit is pending but there is no interim order.

4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 has received a complaint ,Creted 13.O2.2025 from Mr.Md.Gouse pasha alleging that t,he petitioner is proceeding with constn:ction of compound u,al1 and tin shed without obtainirrg prior 3 permission from respondent No'2' On receipt. of said complaint, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated

14.02.2025 informing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents within 7 days for the purpose of verihcation' l,earned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions,

5. would submit that the after fi1ing of the writ petition on

14.02.2025, the petitioner received the said notice. The petitioner will submit explanation within 7 days.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would further submit that respondent No'2 will consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the complaint, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telalgana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 by putting the petitioner and Mr.Md.Gouse Pasha on notice and affording them an opportunit5r of hearing'

7. As discussed supra, the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid. open plots on the strength of the aJoresaid sale deed. According to the petitioner, its vendor obtained building permit order dated 12.06.2018 from the then Gram 4 Panchayat, Ragannaguda Village, for the pur:pose of construction of house. According to the petitioner, its vendor constructed (rompound wall and tin shed. The said <:ontention of the petitioner is factually incorrect. It has purchased the open plot arrc. there is no mention with regard to the aforesaid building pernut order obtained by the vendor of the petitioner from the then Gram Panchayat, Ragannaguda, a.nd it has constructed t.re compound wall and tin shed.

8. In the liqht of the said submissions, this Writ .petition is disposed of tlirecting the petitioner to submit ex.prianation within 7 dal,s to the notice dated 14.02.2025 as directed by respondent -\o.2. Respondent No.Z shall consider t.he same and take action against the petitioner, strictly in ar:cordance with the plocedure laid down under the .I.elangana Municipalities Act, 20Ig by putting the petitic,ner and Mr.Md.Gouse Pasha on notice ald affording 1:hem an opportunity of hearing. Till then, respondent No.2 is, directed not to proce ed further pursuant to the notic:e dated 14.02.2025. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 shall not con.sider and adjudicate the title disputes between 5 the petitioner ald Mr.Md.Gouse pasha. He shall confine only to the extent of unauthorised construction if made by the petitioner as alleged by Mr.Md.Gouse pasha. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EGTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary (tvlunicipal Administration)' Dr B' R' Ambedkar Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State ot Ielangana'

2. The Municipal Commissioner / Special Officer' Turkayamjal Municipality' Ranga ReddY District

3. The Town Planning officer, office of the Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

4. One CC to SRI M.RAMESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 6.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies w BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 18102t12025 ORDER WP.No.4632 c>f 2025 o r THE S 14 r'( c o l- (n u't ttlt zalS i ,C * o { -{l'na 1q'.rr lio * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \o cuP?nA V;':- 6eta: