1. T.Suseela ,@ Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to demolish/dispossess or in arry manner interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitionen; in respect of their houses constructed in Sy.No. 260, situated at Sadasivpet village and Mandal, Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.83 03 of2O19 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing lor the petitioners and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appear:ing for the respondents and perrrsed the entire material on record.

2. Learned Counsel lbr the petitioners submits that.this writ petition is filed by the petitioners declaring the action of the respondent authorities in threaLening to dispossess the petitioners from l]reir respective thatches house constructed in Sy.No.26O, situated at Sadasivpet Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, r,rrithout issuing any notice and withorrt following the procedure contemplated under the statute, as illegal, arbitrary ancl violation of principles of natura-l justice as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the .) sr,J W.P.No.83O3 oJ 20 19 respondent authorities to allot house sites to the petitioners who were not allotted the house site pattas.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners f-rrther submits that in spite of lapse of nearly 6 years, the r:spondents did not choose to hle any counter in this matter lor denying the averments made in the writ afhdavit ald reqr.rested to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, without loilowing due process of law.

4. Learned Assistant Government pleadt:r for Revenue submits that the respondents will fol1ow the procedure contemplated under law before interfer.ng w"ith thc possession of the petitioners in the subject property and pass appropriate orders.

5. In view of the submissions made by troth sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the resprtndents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in the subject property, without foliowing due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. / 3 SIT,J W.P.No.83O3 of 2O79 6 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. //rRUE coPY// SD/- N.RAJA GOPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR secrrolrfrflrcen To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Sangareddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District 5. The Tahsildar, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sangareddy District. 4. One CC to SRl. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Advocale [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana louTl

6. Two CD Copies KKS KV ?|{c\. HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 '{* lE S14

14. o o $ il 0 JUt't Zfifi ', "^.." " -.- ORDER WP.No.8303 of 2019 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Fntc., q\s\>(