High Court · 2025

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 pleasdd to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.2 authority in passing the orders in Lr. Roc. No. G1/541/2023, dated 1Ot1Ol2O23, and not taking any action against the illegal construction which is made by the respondent No. 3 plot of land in Sy. No' 635/2, situated in Jammikunta Municipal Limits, even by occupying the public road and even after revoking the permission granted in his favour on 0110212021, considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 1011o12o23, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act. Consequently direct the respondent No. 2 authority to take necessary action against the illegal construction of tin shed by the respondent No. 3 in plot of land in sy. No. 635/2, situated in Jamnrikunta Municipal Limits, considering the repres6ntation submitted by the frditioner dated 1O11012023 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition un(ler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu mstances stated in the affidavit fileJ in support of the petition, the High Court m€ y be pleased to direct the responc ent No. 2 authority to take necessary action eor removing the illegal construction of the tin shed in plot of land in Sy. No. 6 35i2, situated in Jammikunta Muni<:ipal Limits Counsel for the Pr:titioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Fespondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMI|\IiSTRATION , Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDtxy, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made tlrr: following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN MIT PETITION No.668O of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Putta i Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for I responde I nt No.2.

2. Peti I I tioner h i erein is claiming that she is the absolute o*.r". .rd possessor of H.No.7-3-32, backside of Boys High I I Schooi, Jammikunta Station, within respondent No'2 I municipality. Respondent No.3 claiming to be the owner of I plot admeasuring 70.88 Sq.yds in Sy.No'635 /2, adjacent to her house, by suppressing true facts and playing fraud upon respondent No.2 authority, he had obtained permission for construction of ground plus first floor and i l he has completed construction. The same is unauthorized I constructibn. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a I representdtion dated 2a.fi.2o22 to respondent No.2 with a I I request to, take action against respondent No.3. But, the i I wa"l not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has "am" filed a writ petition uzde W.P.No.352 of 2023. Vide order -.--rtsi .- - \ * \'/.P.No.6680 of 20fa. I Z dated 27.C'6.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition di:r:cting the respondent No.2 to initia -e further necessary rrction in accordance with law, aftr:r considering the reply dzLted 25.04.2023 stated to have been ;ubmitted by respondent No.3.

3. Pemsal of record wor-rld reveal that vide orCer dated

07.O'2.2O21, respondent No.2 has revoked the buiiding permissron ,rrder obtained by respondent No.ll. T l-rereafter, respondr:nt No.3 has filed a s.uit uide O.S No.7.- of 2022 against ther petitioner, respondent No.2 and another, seeking per'petual injunction, and the sarne v/as lismissed for defanlt 'tn 21.12.2023.

4. In conrpliance with the order daled 27.O(t.2O23 in W.P.No.352 of 2023, respondent No.2 has .rassed a speaking crder dated LO.1O.2O23 stating tleat both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming that '-hey have purchased l.he land from same vendor i.e., Smt Marthuri Chithramm zt, wife of Srinivas and on field verihcation, it is observed ttrat there are title _and boundary disputes KL,J w.P.No.6680 of 2025 J between parties. Therefore, respondent No.2 has instructed the petitioner to approach 'appropriate forum to settle the title and boundary disputes between the parties. After settling the said disputes, respondent No.2 will take action as per the rules.

5. As discussed supra, respondent No.2 had issued revocation orders dated Ol .O2.2O21 revoking the permission granted in favour of respondent No.3 on the ground of misreprcsentation of facts. Thereafter, respondent No.3 again proceeded with the constmction' Respondent No.2 has to consider the said aspect of title dispute between. the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to subject property. Without considering the said aspect, vide speaking order dated 10.1O.2O23, respondent No.2, directed the petitioner to approach the .civil Court to settle the dispute. Therefore, the said speaking order dated lO.7O .2023 is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects' Therefore, it is liable to be set-aside and accordingly it is set-aside and the rnatter is remand back to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider the aspects, more I t I a \ I t t KL; tV.p.No.6680 of 201.1 4 particulari./ re\rocation order dated Ol.O2.2O2l re( )al1ing the building pr:rmission of respondent No.3 dated 01.O2.2O27 and pass appropriate order afresh by putting the petitioner and respo.tdent No.3 on notice and affording them an opportunit / of hearing. He shall complete t he entire exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from t,re date of receipt of :L copy of this order. However, it is rr.ade clear that resporrdent No.2 shall not consider the, title dispute between thc petitioner err-rd rcspondent No.3 u.ith regard to subject pro t)erLv. 6 . Accor,l ingly, this writ petition disp,rsed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition s, if any, pending in bhe Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE tF:rttREGrsrRAR \, \ sEr)TtoN oFF|CER \/ T.S.,Hyderabad. Mandal, Karimnagar District

1. The Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration, Secrr,rtariat Buildings, 2. The Commissioner, Jammikunta Municipality, Jammikunta prrtper and 3. One CC to 5jRl. K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI 4 Iwo CCs to cp FoR IvIUNtCtpAL ADMtNtSTFUTtOt\iAND (,RBAN .a[yE:3,:9,]"uf if fr HfJfi kxh?,3,3.::J3,Fbnfi ffi i,i1,3,9;,',,110'o,, 6. Two CD Copir:s IoPUCI B.M BS \ \ HIGH COUR.T DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.6680 of 2025 r:-= P.E S; 1 -r4 r( 2 4 APf, 21ffi ,, o * i)'!.SFr''r c\:, .il --//2' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS -2