V. Jangaiah v. The State of Telangana

3. Sri Raj Babu, S/o. Not Known, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Business, Office at Vasantha Real Estates, Thurkayamjal X Roads, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Sri Kakumanu Anthoni, S/o. K. Jakobu, Aged about 71 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Kammaguda Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, New Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Sama Bheem Reddy, S/o. S. Ram Reddy, Aged aboul 46 years, Occ. BusineSs, R/o. N.S.R Nagar Colony, Ragannaguda Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, New Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Kakumanu Balraju, S/o. K. Anthony, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.15'll1, Kammaguda Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, New Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Raghava Constructions, Rep. by its Partner Brahmanpally Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, New Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8. Sri Sai Balaji Homes, Rep. by its Partner, Near Charvu Katta Brahmanpally Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, New Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 pa(icularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing impugned intimation Letter No.28Bi2024lTPSfiYMC, dated 25.11.2024 thereby by refusing to take action on the illegal constructions raised over land admeasuring Ac. 0-05 gts in Sy. No. 269, Ac 0-01 gt in Sy.No. 270, Ac.0-04 gts in Sy No. 273, Ac. 1-21 gts in Sy. No. 274, Ac 1-28gts in Sy No. 275, Ac 2-O1 gts in Sy No.295, situated at Torrur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, withoui there being any building permission and in violation of the interim orders dt. 25.09.2009 granted by the Hon'ble High Court inW.P.No.22240 of 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the settled principle of law and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to stop the illegal constructions raised over land admeasuring Ac.0-05 gts in Sy. No.269, Ac 0-01 gt in Sy.No.270, Ac.0-04 gts in Sy No. 273, Ac. 1-21 gts in Sy. No.274, Ac 1-28 gts in Sy No. 275, Ac 2-01 gts in Sy No.295, situated at Torrur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without there being any building permission and in violation of the interim orders dt. 25109/2009 granted by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.22240 of 2007 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 't 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 direct the Respondent irlo.Z to stop the illegal constructions raised over land admeasuring Ac.0-05 gts in Sy. No. 269, A,.0-01 gt in Sy.No. 27O, Ac.0-04 gts in Sy No. 273, Ac. 1-21 gts in Sy. No.274, Ac 1-28 gts in Sy No. 275, Ac 2-01 gts in Sy No.295, situated at Torrur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without there being any building permission, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8:--- The Court made the following: ORDER - HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.5166 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.l and Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent Nos.3 to 8.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner and 5 others have frled a writ petition vide W.P.No.2224O of 2OO7 challenging the Occupancy Rights Certiflrcate, dated 07.03.1996, issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8. This Court vide order. dated KL'J W-P-No 5166 of 2025 2

25.Og.2OOg in W'P'M'P'No'7255 of 2OO9 inW'P'No22240 of 2OO7 granted interim stay of the said proceedings until further ord.ers. The said interim order is subsisting' In the meanwhile, respondent Nos'3 to 8 and some third parties are trying to obtain permission from respondent No.2forconstructionandlayoutetc.Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation' dated 25.Og.2O24 to respondent No'2 with a request to revoke the building permission' if any' issued in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8 and demolish the structures raised receipt of the said in the said Property' On letter dated 25'll'2o24 representation, vide intimation respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner stating that the request made by the petitioner for review of permissions granted for construction on the disputed land has been noted' He has instructed the relevant authorities to thoroughly investigate the matter and respondentNo.2willverifyifanybuildingpermissions were issued in violation of the Court's interim order-and if -/ KL,J w.P No 5166 of 2025 J found, revoke such permissions. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner herein that respondent No.2 is not proceeding further pursuant to the said intimation letter, dated 25. 11.2024. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner hled the present writ petition

4. Whereas, Sri Lakshmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced written instructions of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 has not issued any permission in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8 or any third parties in respect of the subject property. However, if any person approached respondent No.2 seeking building permission, he witl consider the interim order, dated 25.O9.2OO9 in W.P.M.P No.7255 of 2OO9 in W.P.No.22240 of 2O07 including misrepresentation and suppression of false statements, if any, made by third parties including respondent Nos.3 to g and take steps strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short .- -- { (L,J w.P No 5166 of2025 4 'the Act, 2otg'1. The said written instructions are placed on record. In the light of the said submissions' this Writ 5. Petition is disposed of directing respondent No'2 to take further steps pursuant to the- proceedings' dated 25.t1.2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 2Ol9' He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. PRATHIMA TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER *?51[3lil fiitlSf B; Bl[."[fi''t:il]i'Sl{:X:l'g"y"B?':"iffi '"d5i:11 i1iig[{p#$}iltm5#-hqisfgl?'#,;:::'JlT:",- 3 I Y3 3lX'". :L:?'fl:ff i ?, Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 .) 4

5. 6. TJ GJP Y.t t I HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.S166 of 2025 , t / .I}lt: ri ia 29,. ./ii.-t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^41"'Y{,.<s