High Court · 2025

Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstance:; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to iss;ue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in-action of the Respondent no. 3 to Respondent No. 9 for not passing any order on the notice issued in vide file no. 21 of 2025 dt. 1710212025 et'en after filing reply on 20lO2/2025 is illegal, irregular and against principals of natural justice even after pending of two suits vide file OS. no. 13 of 2016 and OS. No.43B of 2022 (Old OS No. 140 of 2021), viotates the artictes of 14' 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently set a side notice issued in vide no. 22 o'f 2025 dt. 06/03/2025 till disposal of two civit suits pending in vide oS' no- 13 of 2016 and OS. No 438 of 2022 (otd oS. No 140 of 2021) before Honourable Junior Civil Judge at. Kosgi. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition lnder 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 stay further proceecings of the notice issued in vide no:22 of 2025 dt: 06/03/2025 till disposal of two civil suits pending in vide oS. no: 13 of 2016 and OS. No: 438 of 2022 (Old OS. \o: 140 of 2021) before Honourable Junior Civil Judge at: Kosgi. counsel for the rretitioner : sRt KALEKAR suNEEL KUMAR counsel for the t?espondent No.1to5,7to9: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ RURAL DEV counsel for Respondents No.4&s:sRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, sc FoR Gp,Mp,zp Counsel for Resllondents No.i0 : __ The Court made the fo[owing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAT) THE HONOUITABLE SM'T. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRT't I'ETITIO N NO.7289 0F 202s DATED : ;l+ .tz.zlzs Between Smt. Bichala Anrruthanrrna and another AND State of Telangana rep. by Principal Secretary for Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and 9 others OI{DER Petitioners Respondents In this Writ Petitiorr, the petitioncrs are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 3 to 9 in passing any order on the notice issued on 17.02.2025 even after filing of the reply dt.20.02.2025. It is stated that two suits in O.S.No.l3 of 2016 and O.S.No.438 of 2022 (old O.S.No.140 of 2021) on the frle of the Junior Civil Judge, Kosgi are pending and therefore, the impugned notice dt.06.03.2025 should be set I I W.P.No.7289 of 2025 2 aside till the disposal of the civil suits before the Junior Civil .ludge, - Kosgi.

2. Brit:f'facts leading to thc lrlinq of this Writ l,etitiorr arc rhar petitioner No.2 clairns to be the absolute ovvncr and possessor of land of various e>rtents in Survey Nos.l92lC2, Lg2lAll:,E/1, lg2/A/u. l92/A and also the land adrrreasuring Ac.0.06 gurrras in Sur-r,ey No.l92 of Dorepally Village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District. It is srarecl rhat Survey Nc'.192 has sub-divisions of i\'. 'AA' and 'E' in equal parts and each part measures Ac.2.0l quntas. It is statccl that Sur.r,ey No.l92lA consists of three parts I, II and III and part I consistirrg ol Ac.0.13 guntas su,:ceed€d to Kotla chandraiah, S/o Bhirnaiah and Ac.0.l4 gurrtas to Kotla Chandraiah, S/o Thipl;anna. part II. Ac.0.l3 euntas succeeded to Hanumaiah, S/o Balappa and Ac.0.l4 gLrntas to Narsaiafi, S/o Balappa and in Part III, Ac.0. l3 guntas succeedecl to Basaiah, S/o Baganna rlnd Ac.O. l4 guntas to l]anumanthu @ I lanurnaiah. S/o Baganna. It is stated that petitioner No.l's husbarrd tsichala Balakistaiah succeeded to Ac.0.06 guntas of land fi-om Basaiah, S/o Baganna in part III and the same was mutated in the name of petitioner No.l through RoR proceedings No.RoR/RD30/2016 dt.23.06.2016 as ,succession,. Ir is submitted that petitioner No.r through registered sale deed No.4357 i { W.P.No.7289 of 2025 3 of 2015 dt.02.11.2025 has purchased Ac.0.14 guntas of land in Survey No.L92lCl2 and the total land in t-avour o1' petitioner No.l IS admeasuring Ac.l.08 guntas and the sarne has also been implemented in the revenue record tlirough RoR proceedings No.ROR/RD 112016 dt.23.06.2016 and through another unregistered sale deed dt.18.12.1994, petitionerNo.l has purchased the land in Part II and she clairns to be in possession of the propert,v

3. [t is subrnitted that petitioner No.l has constructed a house in Ac.0.06 guntas of land in Survev No.l9l ernd she has also filed an application on 26.09.2019 fbr obtaining perrnission fiom Gram Panchayat, but nobody responded to her and she rnade another application dt.23.05.2020. [t is subrnitted that thor"rgh respondent No.l0 is entitled to succeed only to Ac.0.l3 guntas ot' land, with the collusion of the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer of Narayanapet, he got mutated the other extents of land in the sub-divisions of Survey No.l92 without having any locus standi and on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is stated that he has frled a suit against petitioner No.2 in O.S.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kosgi (Kodangal) and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.35 of 2016 dt.27.06.2017 and police aid order in I.A.No.302 of 2018 in O.S.No.13 \ t \ \ W.P.No.7289 of 2025 4 of 2016 ct.22.04.2019. It is stated that thereafter, respondent No.l0 has llled W.P.No.37620 of 2018 and obtained interinr ordcr to stop illegal - cottstruction vide orders dt.12.10.2018. It is statcd that petitioner No.l w'as rnaking constrlrction of liouse irr her extent ot' Ac.0.06 guntas of lancl in Survey No.l92, which was never stoppcd, but alier completion ol'the corstruction, respondent No.6 issued notices to petitioner No.? as to rvhy the illegal construction constructed during the pendencl of tl-re Writ Petition should not be dernolished and u,hen tlrc replv ol the petitionen; was not received by respondent No.6, pctitioner. No.2 got issued legal notice to respondents 3, 4 and 6 ancl asked to receive reply to the notices, but the replies were not received by thern. It is stated that due to fre,luent notices issued by respondent No.6, petitioner No.l flled an application for survey of the suit schedule prolrcrties and the respondent No.3 Tahsildar , vide File No.A /l39l20zl dt. I 5.02.2021, had stated that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana injunction order is in existence in the said survey numbers and hence he is unable to do survey of the suit schedule properties and it was in these circumstances that respondent No.t0 got the house constructed by petitioner No.l dernolishe,J. It is stated that finally on 26.06.2021, respondenr No.6, along with the Superintendent of Police came to the plaint schedule W.P.No.7289 of 2025 5 property and tried to demolish the house constructed by petitioner No.l and with great difficulty, the same could be stopped. It is stated that petitioner No.l also has filed a suit lbr injunction which is pending before the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Kosgi and sirrce the civil suits are pending, the petitioners requested the respondent.s not to take any further action.

4. Respondent No.6 has filed their courrter affidavit along rvith stay vacate petition and subrnitted that the petitioners have not taken permission for making construction and in spite o1'scrvice of notices to stop the construction, they have proceeded with further construction and violated the orders of this Court and this Court, vide orders dt.03.01.2025, had directed tl-re resporrdents to takc necessary action against the construction rnade by petitioner No.2 in accordance with lau, and in compliance thereof, a notice dt.17.02.2025 was issued, to which petitioner No.2 replied on 20.02.2025, but in the errtire reply. she has not stated that she has obtained permission for such construction and after considering the same, second notice dt.06.03.2025 has been issued Therefore, according to respondent No.6, the petitioners have failed to obtain any permission and therefore, the building is liable to be demolished. \ t W.P.No.7289 of 202.i 6

5. Tht: petitioners have filed a repl),' affidavit stating that the house \\'as construcred in the year 2019 and that petitiorrer No. I has bcen residing in thc said house ever since. It is stated that the applications for pel'ltllssloit were never responcled to b,v the authorities and tlicretbre. cottstruction rvas made. It is submitted that irr view of the injLrnction orders grantecl by the trial Court in O.S.No.l3 of 2016 and O.S.No.43B ol 1022, the respondents were directed not to revoke the notice dt.O(r.03.2025 and await decision of the civil Court. The petitioners have also filed r:olties of the photographs to show that the construction cristed in the yeal2019 onwards as per the google maps and the photographs of the buildirlg are also f-rled along with the Writ Petition and subniittecl that it is an old construction.

6. Res;tonclent No.l0 is represented by a counsel, Lrr-rt has not liled a counter aflidavit. The learned counsel is heard.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds frorn the google maps filed along with the reply affidavit and also from the photographs filed along with the Writ Petition, that there is only one house constructed in the land in Survey No.l92 an<l li'om the tax receipts, it is also noticed that petitioner No.l i t W.l'.No.7289 of 2025 7 has been paying property tax. The applications filed by petitioner No.1 fbr construction permission are also filed along with the Writ Petition, but it did not enclose an.v building plan. Adnrittedly, the application of the petitioners is not in the prescribed proforma and though the respondents have received the same, neither have they replied to the t I i t petitioner nor have they rejected the same.

8. Since the reconstruction is already made and there are interirn orders by the civil Court in this matter, the petitioncrs are perrnitted to ! I t I I l.rle a lresh application to respondent No.6 tbr bLrilding perrnission online in the prescribed format and respondent No.6 shall consider the same in accordance with law and if it is prima./ac'ie satisfied about the title of the petitioners, then appropriate perrnission nray be granted. [1' fbr any reason permission cannot be granted to the petitioners, the salne rnay be communicated to the petitioners for availing appropriate legal remedy and till such time, respondent No.6 shall not take any coercive n ! { steps against the petitioners

9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. W.P.No.7289 of 2025 8

10. Pending rniscellarreous petitions, if any, ir1 this writ petitio, sharl stand clo:;cd To, /TRUE COPY// SD/-K. MADHAVI ANT REGISTRAR N OFFICER 1 The Prirrcipal Secretary for Panchayat Raj Depa Hyderabad Secretariat, Telangana State.

2. The Prirrcipal Secretary for Revenue Department, Hyderabad, Secretariat, Telangerna State Telangana State.

3. The Th:rhsildar, The Office of the Thahsildar, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District, 509 411.

4. The Re'renue Divisional Officer, The Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayarrpet Town and District, 509 41 1.

5. The District Collector, The Office of the District Collector, Narayanpet Town and District, 509 210

6. The Dorepally Panchayat Secretary, Dorepally Village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District, 509 411 7 . The Mandal Perishad Development Officer, The Office of the Mandal Perished Development Officer, [/addur Mandal, Narayanpet District, 509 411

8. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, The Office of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narayanpet Town and District, 509 210.

9. The District Panchayat Officer, The Office of the District Panchayat Officer, Narayartpet Town and District, 509 210. 1O ONC CC; tO SRI KALEKAR SUNEEL KUMAR, AdVOCAtE. [OPUC] 11 TWO CC:S tO GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High COUTT fOT thE State of Telangana. [OUT] 12 ONE CC: tO SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR ZPP, MP, GPP. [OPUC] 13 Two CC, Copies. BSK BS HIGH C:ggp1 DATED :24t12t2OZs , o/-) tiTRo I g I'|lrR 2i12f, fD ,J: '* :j ORDER WP.No.7'289 of 20Zs DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b 1 ": ' ' ,";11" I