High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in laying the road in northem side of Sy. No. 87 abutting the colony in Sy. No. 88, between Sy. No. 87/8 and Sy- Na 89 under the guise of the Gramasabha .61;::.:-w,/ Resolution, contrary to the Gramasabha Resolution which'sas passed for laying the road from Bodapatla Shiva Reddy land to Komarelli Pratap Reddy dry land, and the action of the Respondents No.4 to 6 forming the road in the Petitioners land in Sy. No. 89, by extending the road laid doom by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, in Sy, No. 87, abutting the colony established in Sy. No. BB, without acquiring the land, without payment of any compensation and without the consent of the Vendors of the Petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles '14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenily crirect the Respondents No. 2 to 6 to remove the road illegally formed in the Petitionerrs land contrary to the Gramasabha Resolution. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 37567 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m,ry be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to remove the road ill:q6l|y formed, in the Petitioners' land in northern side of Sy. No. 87 abutting the colony established in Sy. No. 88, and between Sy. No. 87/8 and Sy. No. 89 contrrtry to the Gramasabha Resolution, pending the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT IRAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 AND 3: KISHORE RAO PUSKURU (SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 The Court made the following: ORDER .\ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ORDER: W.P.NO. 30366 0F 2016 In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in laying the road on the northern side of Survey No.87 abutting the colony in Survey No.88 between Survey No.87/8 ald Survey No.89 under the guise of Gramasabha Resolution, but contrary to the Gramasabha Resolution which was passed for laying the road from Bodapatla Shiva Reddy land to Komarelli Pratap Reddy dry land and that the action of the respondents No.4 to 6 in forming the road in the petitioners land in Survey No.89, by extending the road laid down by the respondents No.2 and 3 in Survey No.87, abutting the colony established in Survey No.88, without acquiring the land, without payment of any compensation and without the consent o[ the vendors of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 2l and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 to 6 to remove the road illegally formed in the petitioners land and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. o

2. Bnef facts leading to the filing o[ tht: present writ petition are tlrilt. the petitioners are the purchast'rs of land in division survey numbe r s from their Survey No.Sl' and sub Iandlords rr lto arc H/o.Chinna liondur Village, Choutuppal Mant. al, Nalgonda residents of Peddakorrdur Vitlagc, District. It is submittccl that as per the boundarie-' rnentioned in thc sale cleed thcre rs a 15 feet road on the south(:rn side of the land i.c. , in Strruev No.87 / u and it is towards thr' north side to Survey No.8 //E. It is submitted that before l'he petitioncrs purchascd 'hc serid property, there was r' Gramsabha Rcsolutton fr l J:rving tl-Lc road lrom Bodapatla Shjva Reddv land to Kom:rrelli I'r'atap Rcddy dry land and instear l of laying thc road as per tho Gramsabha Rcsolution, on oral r'equests of the villagers, tht road has becn Iaid through the lanc ol the vcndors (lzrter pttrch, rsed b1' tl-re petitioners), without acq riring the land and u'ithout pzryment of compensation and with('Lrt thc consent ol' the vcndors of the petitioners. Challenging the samc, the present u'rit pc tition has been filed.

3. l,carned counsel for the petitioners submittcd that as ther<: rr'r s a deviation of the Gramsabha Resolution and \ ql,ithout acqllinng the Iand and without obtainin;1 consent of the partrcs, thc rozrcl rt'as laid and therelbre, the rrlad has to be 3 removed. It is submitted that by taying the road, the land of the petitioners is divided into two parts and the value of the land has come down. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant papers lo demonstrate his contentions.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the road was initially proposed to be laid lrom Bodapatla Shiva Reddy land to Komareili Pratap Reddy dry land. However, at the oral requests of the village farmers, the said path was connected to R&B road through the Survey Nos.87 and 89, which was the land belonging to the vendors of the petitioners. It is submitted that the said road was laid in the year 2Ol2-I3, but no objections or requests were made during the relevant period of time and at the time of lormation of the road, the land owners of Survey Nos.87, 88 and 89, consented for the formation of the road. It is submitted that works were completed under the MGNREGS scheme and no complaints or objections were received either at the time execution of said work or three years after execution of the work. It is submitted that the petitioners were aware of the existence of the road at the time of purchase of the property in 4 the month ol Jul-y, 2016' Therefore, accortling to the respondents, rhere is no cause of action for the pet itioners to file this rvrit petition

5. L,r-'arnecl counsel for the petition er' however' submitlecl that the predecessors-in-interest of 1.he petitioners have becn pursuing the matter and they have Lssued a legal notice to the respondents in the year 2016 and tl-'e respondents have failed t( ) r(rplv to Lhe same He further drew lhe attention of this Court trr thc information furnished by the respondents under the llTI Act to establish that there is a dcviation of Gramsatrha Resolution and that the consent of t -le land owners u,as not takln ztl thc rimc of laying the road'

6. Ilztving rt'gard to the rival conte:ttions and the nratcrial on ret:orci, this Court finds that the pel.il-ioners are the purchascrs rrf the subject land and have purcha sed the land on Ol.O7.2O!C,. Thc altegcd legal notice given by the vendors o[ the the same was petitioncrs is <lated 09 06.2016 and admittedl " receiveclb.,tlrcrespondentofficersonthever}samedayitself by har-rcl. Flou cver, in the legal notice, there is rto averme nt that any objectron or complaint u'as raised at the time of laying of the roa<l. it is only stated that prior consent r>f the vendors of the petitioners $,as not obtained as required un<ler law, even as Y 5 per the MGREG Act and MGREG Scheme. However, it is also not in dispute that the road was laid in the years 2OI2-2OI3 and the vendors of the petitioners have issued the legal notice only in the year 2016 i.e., just prior to the sale of the property on O 1 .07.2016. The petitioners were very much aware of the existence of the road through their land and have knowingly purchased the same. Therefore, they cannot now seek removai of the road or compensation for the road going through the land of the petitioners. The compensation, if any, ought to be paid only to the owners of the property at the relevant point of time and not to the successors of interest. Horvever, since the vendors of the petitioners have not raised any objection at the relevant point of time or within a reasonable period of time, but have raised objection after more than a three years, l-his Court does not hnd any merit in this writ petition.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed SD/.N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER te [O cl TS ZILLA PARISHADS) [OPUCI Development, High Court for the //TRUE COPY// To '1. On" CC to Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, Advoca Z. One CC to Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru (SC for e. i*o CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies TJ LS s I HIGH COURT DATED:2510312025 t ORDER WP.No.30366 of 2016 ,' 2 ' ,'if, 20E 1$( : () \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I 6)o+'q VA Ko