The High Court · 2025

Sriram Reddy s/o late C Yella Reddy, aged 39 years, Occ Balapur village, H.No. 3'13, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy AND ...PETITIONERS

1. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar revenue mandal Ranga Reddy district, at Saroornagar

2. K Yethi Raju s/o not known to petitioner, occ. private service r/o Balapur village, Saroornagar mandal. Sai Nagar Colony, H.No. 12-6, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (Since the Conditional Order of the Court dated 16-04-2015 has not been complied with, the default clause of the said order has been Given Effect to, and the WP accordingly stands dismissed as against Respondent No.2) ...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 a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 13-7-2012 in proceedings no. 81257412012 passed by the first respondent under purported exercise of power under section '144 and 145 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. l,A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 28509 OF 2012) 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 issue interim directions suspending the order dated 13-7-2012 in proceedings no. 81257412012 passed by the flrst respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.22239 of 2OL2 ORDER: Heard iearned Counsel appearing lor the petitioners and Smt. S. Sravantl-ri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned Counsel lor the petitior-rers submits that the petitioners are questioning the order dated 13.O7.2012 in Proceedings No.Bl257al10t2 passed by the respondent No.1 under purported exercise of pou,er under Section 144 and 145 of Criminai Procedure Code (CrPC) as arbitrary and illegal

3. Learned Counsel lor the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 basing on the representation made by the respondent No.2 and 76 others directing the petitioner No.1 not to obstruct the alleged easment lrom Sri Sai Nagar Colony to RCA main road and restore it to its origina-i state. The respondent No.2 and cthers harre fi1ed a representation -I SI(,J W.P.No.22239 o! 2072 contending that there is a pathway (donka) which is used as an approach road by them as per the alleged approved layout developed by their owner and they have purchased plots in the said layoul which was approved by the Gram Panchayat and have constructed houses and have been residing in the colony by paying taxes regularly and they are used as an approach road to RCA lor the last several years and suddenly in an illegal manncr closed the road and are leveling the same lor their personal use. In the impugned order, the respondents basing on the report of the Additional Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 07.O7.2012 stated that the petitioners obstructed the pathway to Sri Sainagar rvhich has been using for the last 25 years in Sy.No.134 and 145. Basing on the said report, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners on 07 .O7 .2012. Surprisingly the impugned order is passed invoking the power under Section 144 and i45 of Cr.P.C., on

13.07.2012 even before expiry of 7 days period given to the petitioner No.l to submit his explanation and there is a 3 SI(,J W.P.No.22239 oJ 2012 dispute with regard to the ownership and possession of the land which needs to be adjudicated before a competent Civil Court and inrrocation of porier under Sectior-r 744 and 145 Cr.P.C., and the alleged layout of the respondent No.2 and others is not an approved plal. Without there being any proceedings, the respondent No.1 issued impugned order and requested to set aside the same and submits that this Court passed interim order on 23.O7.2012 and suspended the impugned proceedings and directed tl-ral it sha1l be open to the respondent No. I to identily ary approach to the colony in question, through roads, which are vested in the Gram Panchayat as per the approved iayout. In spite of the said direction of this Court, the respondent No.1 not filed any counter and requested to set aside the impugned order by a11or,i,ing the writ petition

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue i submits that the impugned notice issued under Section 144 and 145 of Cr.P.C., and the same is valid for six (6) - 4 SK,J w.P.No.22239 oJ 20 12 months and there is no cause survive in the writ petition, hence rcquested to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing thc material on record, this Court is of the considered view that merely basing on the report of the respondent No.2 ald others, the respcndent No.1 passed orders without following due process of law.

6. In '.'icw ol the submissions madc by both sides, the writ petition is disposed of by 5s11ing aside the impugned proceedings No.Bl257al2O72, dated 13.07.2012 issued by the rcspondent No.1. Thcre shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, il anlr' sha, stand closed TJ;[r?i'TttaiJi#E //rRuE coPY// ,."f or.,.r* ;"ffi:ffi :' ;$j;$-'",,5gfffiEh"-:'s;'ffi To 1 2 3

4. PSK. .I'KS ? r^c, HIGH COURT DATED:1 810812025 ORDER WP.No.22239 of 2012 { HE SIe 2 0 JAil 2026 c) ). Y .t DISPOSlNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ flr't(.,. iol.rr\ -{