Smt. Samala Kavitha, Wo v. District Kamareddy

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 orders, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents more particularly that of respondent No.2 is not taking any action against respondent No.7 who has undertaken unauthorized and illegal construction over the subject land inspite of my representations dated 15-02-2025 and 17-02-2025 is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. The respondent No.7 is the stooge of respondent No.5 and 6, who is set up to over reach the orders passed by a competent Civil Court and consequently direct the official respondents to forthwith t#f-: take action against the unofficial respondents by preventing further construction and removing the same over the subject property over an extent of 210.8 Sq.Yards forming part of Sy.No.85/2A, situated at Patha Rajampet within the municipal limits of Town and District Kamareddy, belonging to the Petitioner in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supoort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents to take necessary steps and ensure that no further construction takes place over the subject land in an extent of 210.8 Sq.Yards forming part of Sy.No.85/2A, situated at Patha Rajampet within the municipal limits of Town and District Kamareddy, belonging to the petitioner, by the unofficial respondents in terms of the representations dated 15-02-202.5 and 17 -Q2-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO7:. - The Court made the following: ORDER MPCL tri- " ,/. I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAN WRIT PETITION No.561+ OF 2o.25 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Vrjay B Paropkari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 ar-d 4. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner ald possessor of open plot 1n Sy.No.85/2A, admeasuring North to South: Eastern side: 85.0 Feet, Western side: 80.0 Feet and East to West: Northern side:

25.0 Feet, Southern side: 21.0 Feet, the total area of which 1897.5 sq.ft. (210.8 sq.yds.) equivalent to 176.2 sq.mtrs. She has filed a suit vide O.S.No.2O6 of 2024 against respondent Nos.S and 6 for perpetual injunction and vide order dated 29.11.2024, learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 2 Spl.(Mobile) at Kamareddy District granted status quo order. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that despite status-quo order and permission granted in favour of the petitioner by respondenr'- No.2 for construction of house, respondent Nos.S to 7 are making construction in the said property. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 17.01 .2O25''to respondent No.2 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.5 to 7. Despite receiving ald acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the r;aid inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1655 of 2025. Vide order, dated 22-Ct1.2O25, this Court dismissed the said writ petition obsenring that that in the representation dated L7.OI.2O25 petitioner has specifrcally stated that respondent Nos.S to 1' are making construction in the aforesaid property belongs to her and when the petitioner went to the spot to sl-op the said construction, they have abused the petitioner and I ! I t, ;i 3 assaulted her. They have also lodged a complaint with police. There is a status-quo order in their favour. Thus, according to the petitioner, respondent Nos.S to 7 are making construction in the aforesaid property in violation of the status-quo order granted by the trial Court in the aforesaid suit. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail remedy under CPC by fiting an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC. They cannot submit representation dated 17.01 .2025 to respondent No.2 with ,"qr."t io take action against respondent Nos.5 to 7 alleging ^ violation of status-quo order and file the present writ petition alleging non-consideration of the said representation. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less, the relief sought in the said writ petition. Observing so, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail other remedies.

3. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted representation, dated 15.02.2025 to respondent No.2 stating that 4 respondent No.7 is not party to the said suit i.e., O.S.No.2O6 of 2024 and that respondent Nos.S to 7 are proceeding with the construction without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.2. Therefo::e, petitioner requested respondent No.2 to take action against respondent Nos.S to 7. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent Nb.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner Iiled the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice, dated 23.OL.2O25 to respondent Nos.5 to 7 alleging that they are proceeding with the constmction without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has already directed respondent Nos.5 to 7 to stop construction. Seven (7) da1's time was grailted to them to submit explanation. They have ) \, 5 submitted explanation. However, respondent No.2 will consider the said aspects and take action against respondent Nos.S to 7 strictly in accordalce with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (for short 'the Act, 2OI9) by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.S to 7 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing.

5. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to take ,! I I further action against respondent Nos.5 to 7 pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 23.01.2025 and also explanation submitted by respondent Nos.S to 7 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 2Ol9, by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.S to 7 on notice and aIlording them an opportunity of hearing. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 shall not consider the disputes between the I t , I I I I i i 6 petitioner ald respondent Nos'5 to 7 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stald closed' SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY REGISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPY// qil oFFlcER 1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development' Secretariai. Hvderabad, State of Telangana. iiJ corri.siJntr, Kamareddv Municipality' Kamareddy District' The Chairman, Municipal Council, Kamareddy Dis.trict' ii;; iil; il";nins o1ftder, Kamareddv Munibipalitv, Kamareddv District' oni bt'tb sniVtl"nv B PARoPAKAR1, Advocatq [o?uc] i;; dd"i"-ci Fcjn rtrdp[ noMN & URBAN DEV, Hish court for the State of Telanqana, at HYderabad. [OUTI 6";-CCi; sRipurrA kntsHun Heoov. sc FoR MPcL IoPUC] Two CD CoPies To \ 2 J 4 5 6

7. 8. PSK. BS t t HIGH COURT DATED:2 510212025 ORDER WP.No.5614 of 2025 CC TODAY I rue l; c( 'e eJ o * 11 1 r,lAl] zffi $1 1- 1::i / DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS + {rI,J