The High Court · 2025

Petition under 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession upon reconstruction of compound wall by the petitioners in respect of House bearing No.12-5-12l1 (old No.12-5-105/1A) admeasuring 66g.40 sq.yards in ward No.12, Btock No.5 situated at Arsapally village within the limits of Municipal corporation, Nizamabad, and pass necessary orders, as otherwise petitioner stand to suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss. Counselfor the petitioners: SRI N. MANOHAR counselfor the Respondent No. I to 4: sRl RAKESH KUMAR, AGp FoR REVENUE Counselfor the Respondent No. 5: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: . _-_ The Court made flre foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUG}OPAL WRIT PEIITION No.12OOS of 2O22 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularlg the 4trl respondent in demolishing the compound wall of residential House bearing No.12-5-12/1( old No.12-5-105/1A) in Ward No.12, Block No.S, admeasuring 668.40 sq.gards uithin the limits of Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad of Arsapallg uillage, Ni.zamabad District as illegal, arbitrary, without notiie and in uiolation of pinciples of natural justice, contrary to Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitutiort of India artd consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession by further directing either to reconstntct the. compourtd wall illegallg demolished by them or to palJ the damages amounting to Rs.5,OO,00O/ - towards the reconstrttction oJ'the compound wall in respect of House bearing No. 12-5-12/ 1, (old No.12-5-105/ 1A) admeasuring 668.40 sq. yards in Ward No.12, Block No.S within the limits of Municipal Corporation Nizamabad of Arsapally uillage, Nizamabad District..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that uideJtotice dated 31.12.2021 in file No.A/355/2021, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar had issued a notice to the petitioner seeking explanation on the aspect of construction of compound wall pertaining to the land belonging to grave yard situated in Sy.No.134, l .i T 2 \...' *t*.I admeasuring 234.76 sq.yards situated at Arsapally - Village Shivar, Nizamabad District (herein after referred as subject property) and accordingly seven (07) days time has been given to the petitioner for liling such explanation before respondent No.4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that by the time being explanation was given by the petitioner in the form of reply dated 1O.O 1 .2022. But, without giving any considera.tion to the explanation, without thert: being any order of demolition and without putting the petitioner on notice, respondent No.4 had demolished the compound wall, which is illegal and impermissible under law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn,attention of this Court that aggrieved by the action of unofficial respondents, petitioners filed a suit uide O.S.No.36 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad. Vide its order dated 22.09.2017, the trial Court granted Perpetual Injunction in favour of the petitioners, restraining the defendants therein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment 3 of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Due to the pressure exerted by the defendants in O.S. No. 36 of 2012, respondent No.4 has not granted permission for the construction of the compound wall. Accordingly, he would submit that the petitioners' right to construct compound wall within the boundaries is in clear violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the photographs, where the compound wall belonging to the petitioner is being demolished with the help of JCB in the presence of the official respondents. It is further submitted that the photographs have seen without any compound wall, allowing animals to roam in the open area within the boundaries of the house of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the p"iitior,"r also relied upon the building permission order under Section lT4 (21 of Telhngana Municipalities Act, 2O19 permitting the petitioners for construction of Part of M.p.L.No. (12-S- 12/ll old No.(12-5-105/ 1A) to an extent of t64.06 Sq.meters (196.21 Sq.yds) in Arsapally Village, Nizamabad District by collecting necessary charges. \i \ 4 Hence, he would seek to allow this writ petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein and also to direct the respondr:nts to permit the petitioners to reconstruct the compound wall demolished by them or to pay the damages amounting to Rs.S,oO,OOO I - towards the reconstnrction of the compound wall.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that no material has been filed by the petitioners in this ,uvrit petition to establish that the official respondents hact demolished the compound wall of the petitioners' house. It is further submitted that in the suit instituted by the petitioners in O.S.No.36 of 2012, the officierl respondents are not made as party,, therefore, the official respondents have not suffered the said suit. It is further submitted that as seen from exhibits marked in the said suit, no materials are placed to establish that the petitioners had. constructed the compound wall. It is further submitted that that the municipal permission on which the petitioners relied upon, did not reflect the 5 survey number of the petitioners' house' Therefore' he would seek to dismiss this writ petition'

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners' learned.AssistantGovernmentPlead.erforRevenueand upon careful perusal of materials placed' this Court seized of the fact that respond'ent No'4 ought to have I I consid'eredtheexplanationsubmittedbythepetitioners on 1O.01 .2022, before resorting to demolish the I / compoundwatlofthepetitionerswiththeassistanceof police. It is apparent that the respondents have resorted to its action in an expeditious manner' As seen from the record, it is not known about the date and time of the demolition of compound wall. This court is refraining to makeanyobservationsonthataspect.Athoroughtrial isrequiredtoelicitthesaidaspect.Therefore,thisCourt deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate civil Court to seek remedy' In the meantime, liberty is also given to the petitioners to make fresh representation to appropriate authority for reconstructionofcompoundwall.Insofarasdamages, it is needless to mention that the petitioners are having a 6 ample opportunities to seek recovery of damages by filing recovery suit before the civil Court

9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed o[. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall also stand closed. GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To.'l.ThePrincipalsecretary'RevenueDepartment'Hyderabad'stateof ""r,'fr iTil"auao oistricl, Nizamabad , +f;5BYs|?ih cott""tor, Nizamabad District' Nizamabad 3. The Rev en u66';i;i"h"i offi 4. The Tanasitd'hf;, Ni;'"b;dlgnti' Nizamabad District' 5. rhe station ilfi Lli ofti'd;! .q1 fb*h cotice_ -slqtion 6. one cc to sHifr" MA1QUB'. Advocate tgiucl 7. Two ccs to GP'ioti REtElrufltrdilHig'h-c"*t for the state of Telansana u. f?'"'t"s to Gp FOR HOME (TG), High court for the State of relangana' 9. 'f*o bo coPies Nizamabad ? MMT PMK HIGH GOURT DATED :26tO9t2A2S ORDER WP.No.IZOOS of 2022 ,J \ * E LHT s 14 f,( 2 0 l{0ll 2u[ r,S],rc * ,t DISPOSING OF THE WITHOUT COSTS WRIT PETITON i:- _