High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 'l 4 E 6 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, Raga Reddy District' The Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandla, Ranga Reddy District Greater Hyderabad [\/unicipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Lower tank Bund Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner, Chanda Nagar circle-21. GHMC, Hyderabad' ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering the *itn tft" possession of the petitioner over the property i'e plot No 1.8'l ' admeasuring22OsqydsinSurveyNos92,93,94,95,97'and93situatedat tr,tiyrprt vitiage, Seiitingampally tViandal, under GHMC Chandanagar Circle' Ar'nd, n"OOiDistrict as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently direct the iespondent No. 4 and o not to interfere with the construction and dispossess the petitioner from the property i.e plot No 181, admeasuring 22O sq yds in Survey Nos g2,93,94,95,97 and 98 situated at Miyapur village, serilingampally Mandal,under GHMC Chandanagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District -s lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine-Higr, court may be preased to isiue lnterim directions to the respondent No.4 & o nJt to interfere wit, ftre por.L..ion of the petitioner over the property i.e prot No 181. admeasu rinpl 220 survey Nos 92,9:r.94,95,97 and g8 situated at Miyapur viilage.'Seriringl*prrrv 'q-vo. Mandal,under GFil\4c chandanagar circre, Ranga Redd/ District, ;;;;i"g disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyl counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: sRl L. RAVTNDER AGp f:oR REVENUE 99.y1:"1 for the Respondent Nos.5&6: SRt c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDy SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6545 of2O25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is frled seeking the following relief: '....to issue ang utit, order or direction more particularlg one in "Wnt of Mandamus declaing the oction of the ti. noire of iespond.ent No.3 in interfenng the u'tith the possession of tlrc p"itior", ouer the propertA i.e., plot No'181 admeasuing 22O sq 'gdt in Su*.g Nos-gZ,- gS, 94, 95, 97 and 98 situoted at Migapur -itLje, seatiigampallg Mandal under GHMC Clandanagar aircle'- nania neaai Dktnci as illegol, arbitrary and -iniiq"""tu' -unconstitutional 6..?ot to interfere airect ttLe respoident Nos'4 -and utith ite cinstruction oni di.po"""s the petitioner from the p*p"rty i.e., ptot No.181 admeasuing 22O sq gds in Surueg 'ioi.gzi g3,' 94, 95, 97 and 98 situated at Migapur uillage' Seilinjampatlg Mand-al under GHMC Chandanagar Arcle' Rango Reddy Drstict...." 2 Considered the submissions of Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi' learned counsel for the petitioner; - Sri L' Ravinder' learned AssistantGovernmentPleaderforRevenueappearingfor respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Sri G. Madhusudhan ReddY, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. The Petitioner claims to be the owner and Possessor of plot bearing No.181 admeasuring 22O square yards ln 2 Sy.Nos.92, 9'3, 94, 95, 97 and 98 situated at Miyapur village, Serilingampatly Mandal under GHMC Chandanag.ar Circle, Ranga Reddlz District, having purchased the sa_rne under registered sale deed bearing document No.3719 of 2A21, dated

16.02.2021 and his vendors are also the absolute owners of the said propert5r, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds; and after purchasing the said property, he obtained building permission uide permit No.242920 I L:39 14 / GHMC / 2022, dated 2I. 12.2022 for ground + 2 upper floors. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent ieuthorities are interfering with the constructions being carried out by him stating that the same are forming part of Sy.No. 10O of Miyapur, which is classrihed as Poramboku (Government land) and are making e,fforts to demolish the existing structures.

4. Learne<l Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 disputed the natrLre of the subject landrs and its classification and submitted that the constructj.ons; carried out by the petitioner are forming part of Sy.No. 100 o1l Miyapur, which is classified as poramboku (Government land). 1r. J

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the petitioner has proceeded to raise the constructions contrary to the building permission, dated 21.12.2022, therefore, the respondents are having right to take action against the illegal constructions being carried out by the petitioner over ald above the sanctioned permission'

6. Be that as it may, as it is stated that the petitioner has purchased the property under registered sale deed, as long as the building permission granted by the GHMC and the layout approved by the HUDA have not been revoked, the respondent authorities are not having power to interfere with the possession of the petitioner stating that the Sy'Nos'92, 93, 94' t t 95, 97 and 98 are forming part of Sy.No' 100' In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that

7. ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ralendra Kumar Bariatga and another as' U'P' Aaas Eoam Vikas Parishad' and othersl, before initiating any action' for I Civit Appeal No. 14604 of2024 dated l'1.122024 4 removal of 1,LLe illegal and unauthorized structures and shall not interfe.re with the existing structures, which are constructed legally. It is needless to state that if the respondents zrre disputing the nature and classificatr.on of the subject lancls., they are at liberty to conduct survey after issuing notices to the petitioner and other interested /affected parties by foJ.krwing the due procedure.

8. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. lVo order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pendin;g, if any, shall stand cl.osed /TTRUE COPY// SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY REGISTRAR APSITANT \i\i.,, ON OFFICER To, 1_

2. J.

4. E b.

7. o The Principal 13ecretary Revenue Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District The Revenur: Divisional Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, Raga Reddy District, The Tahsildzrr, Serilingampally Mandla, Ranga Reddy District The Commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Lower tank Bund Hyderab,ad The Deputy r3,lmmissioner, Chanda Nagar circle-21. GHMC, l-'lyderabad' One CC to {;RI. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] Two CCs to CiP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of l-elangana. louTl 10 Two CD Copriers KKS GJPk HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.6545 of 2025 -f a) r_) "c R t E S .r,.1 14- o 21 titAR 26 ). i' 1^ir' .:1: ,* ( 2 o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \3 rpPfeL Kr 5r6at