High Court · 2025

sri Narla Malla. Reddv' s/o' L-ale 9?i R-"-{dl,AsK?1ftt""#:,I&|.:'f"V,,oif," gil:r:'.'+Ufu, #.r)*,,f,;1fuin?i'J3i'3'"f' pE,.oNER AND ;ffi #,ffi$t6g"4pfrrygffi:;li:'ffiffi ;l;f,::K."' J*.?:}}'nliti:r;n'li'*'T*'on''Ds'irc'i lfliidif*l**Nq'uflX*ffif, - tP ..RESPoNDENTS Pptition undqr Article 226 ol tlle 0onstitutign o[ lndia praying that in the clrcumslanqeq stated in the affidavit tir'eO tn"'qotmj tnt nign Court may be pleaseQ to iqsue a writ' order or direction more plrtiqgtgrly one in the nature of WRIT qF MANOAUUS declaring 11q qction qf the resoondents more particularly o$'ohing the cRS respondgnt NQ6.2 to 5 high-handedly irl inlgrferinn "o compound wall around the petitione/s Agricultural tand to Jn extent of Ac'0-09 Gts., Ac.1-15 Gts, Ac0-31 Gts' Ac2-35 Gts' Ac3-18 GtsiAcl-12 /' Gls''in an extent of Ac.10-0 % Gls'' situated al Korremula Village' Ghatkesar Mandal' Medchal-Malkajgiri District on 25101t2025 along with the compound wall of Divynagar layouts without issuing any show cause notice and without conducting any survey and without demarcation of petitioner's land from the neighbouring Divyanagar Phase-lll Layout situated in Sy Nos 720 and 721 parl of Korremul Agricultural Land and without having any iurisdiction and also challenging the Vil[qgefallingontheWesternandSouthernboundariesofthepetitioneissublect SyNos.718/D,719Paft'719Patl'72OtD'721tDand722Pari respectivelytotaling frequent interferencr: of the respondent No.2 to 5 with peaceful p,)ssession and enjoyment of the above subject Private Agricultural Patta Land of the petitioner in the above said survey numbers to an extent of AcJ1-O /z Gts., situated at Korremul Village is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation rtf principles of natural justice and also in violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 14,21 and 3Q0-A qf Congtitution of lndia and consequently direct the respon,Cgnt to not to inlgrfe1g with peaceful possession an{ enjoyment of the subject property and to reslgre the compound wall of petitioner's' agricultural Patta land of with extent pf Ac,10-0 % Gtg, with different parcels of Ac.0:09 Gts., Ac.1-15 Gts., Ac.0-31 ets., AC.2-35 Gts., Ac 3-1i3 Gts., Ac.1-'12 % Gts., in Sy Nos.71BlD, 719 F,art, 719Paft, 7201D ,721|D and 71l2L Part put together respectively, clUbbed logether situated at Korremyla Village, Ghatkesar Mandql, Melchal-Malkajgiri Distrlgt lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitioh under Section I51 CPC praying that in the circumstances.stated in tho affidevit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High court may !e pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of lhe subject total agriculturat property of Ac.10-0 % gts with different parcelq of Ac.Q-09 Gts;., Ac.'1-15 Gts., Ac,0-31 Gts., Ac.2-35 Gtq., Ac.3-18 Gts., Ac.1-12%Gta.,in Sy,Nos.7'18lD, 71g Part, 719 part, 7_2OtD ,7Z1tD andTZ2parl respectively put tqgether, situated at Korremula Viuage Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-MalkaJgiri District of the petitioner in anyrn6fl4er and permit the petitioner to restere the compor-rnd wall, pending disposal of the Writ petltion Cqunsgl for the Petitioner: SRI G. NAREi{DER REDDY I Oounsel for Respondent No. 1: cP FOR MUNIC|PAL AOM| URBAN DEVELOPMEN} ,h t1&rnAlor.r a Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI KOWTURU PAWAN XUiiAn Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY The CoUrt made the following: ORDER i I l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI{SIIMAI{ WRIT PEf,ITI ON No.5412 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming that he is ttre absolute owner and possessor of Ac. lO.l/2 guntas,-r[th different parcels of areas put together i.e., Ac.O.09 guntas, Ac. 1.15 guntas, Ac.O.31 guntas, Ac.2.35 guntas, Ac.3.18 grrrft"", Ac-L-12 72 guntas, in Sy.Nos.718lD,7l9 part,719 part,72O/D, 72IlD and722 part respectively. He is in possession of the said propert5r. There is standing crop. In proof of the same, he has frled copies of the aforesaid documents and also patta pass books and title deed books. Evbn then, I l i KL,J w.P !o.5412 of 2025 2 respondent lrlos.2,4 and 5 demolished the compotrnd wall without following due procedure laid down uncler law. Therefore, lee hled the present writ petition seeking restoration of the compound wa]l. 3. According to the petitioner, he has constructed the compound rvall to protect his standing crop from wild animals ald land grabbers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for construction of compound wall, there is no rLeed to obtain permission from the then Gram panchayat or 5m respondent municipalit5z in terms of Rule 14 (2) (b) of tl.e Telangana Panchayat Land Development (Layou.t and Building) Rules, 2OO2 (for short ,Ruies,2OO2). Therefore, petitioner has constructed compound wall encircling the said properq, to protect the said propert5r from land grabbers and wild animals. But as per the said rule permission is not required for construction of compound wall to an existing house. In the present case, it is an agricultural land. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek i I KL,J w.P-No.5{12 ot 2025 3 beneht under the said rule. Thus, tlre compound wall constructed by the petitioner is unauthor2ed construction. However, respondent Nos'2, 4 ar:d 5 have already demolished ttre said compound wall' Petitioner is now seeking to erect fencing encircling the aforesaid property to protect his land from land grabbers and wild animals. For erecting fencing, there is no need of obtaining permission from 5n respondent' ..

5. At this stage, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No'5 and Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent on instructions would 4-- - submit that under the guise of raislng fencing, peLitioner is trying to block the roads. They have received complaints from the neighbouring plot owners'

6. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No'2 on instructions would further submit that the petitioner has encroached into Government land. 2"d respondent has 'received (L,J w-P. !o 5412 of 2025 4 complaints liom several people. Therefore, he seeks liberty to ttLe 2'd respondent to obtain informati.n from respondent llos.3 and 4 and to ta_ke action aga:nst the petitioner herein, since as per Clause l.l G.O.Ms.No.gr!r dated Lg.OZ.2024, 2.d respondent has power to protect Government lands, roads etc.

7. In the lig,ht of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of granting permission to the petitic,nef. to erect fencing encircling the said propert5r urithout blocking roa:d.s arrd without creating any hur,lls to neighbours, failing which liberty is granted to respondent No.S to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities; Act, 2olg. He cannot construct the compound wa_ll without obtaining permission from the Sft respondent. Liberty is also granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take ac:tion against petitioner if he encroaches into the Government larrd strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. KI.J w.P.No 5412 of 2025 5

8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SDI-P PADMANAREI,EFRRX ,/TRUE COPY/' CTION OFF]CER []i'f xsl-'*i:''iff#""'';E,""" :?1T:1"-gil'' '"''l!",ff ilFIfl fnn,{li+$E*rp"fl ,In"^.J,T,111.r.ffi i:i#ifi i'lflti:.t'61,5",Til'.",rXl?ff lffi- MPe BSj t HIGH COURT DATED: 24t0Zt2O2S + (,) 1HE sTAi6 c^ ( )G ( .,) i c .|i, 0 4 iliAR 2025 Dr .Soarr:Hcl a ORDER WP.No.S412 ot 2OZs / \t) DISPOSING OF WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS