High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MP AMEts Sl-l Counsif for the Regpondents: GP FOR REVFNUE The Court qlqde the following: ORQER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.87O4 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is illed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hontrre court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the Respondents, partlcularly Respondent No. 4, in interfering urith the property of Petitioner No. I in plot Nos. 4/A, S, 6 admeasuring 325 Sq. yards, Plot No. 7 admeasuring 204 Sq. yards, and plot Nos. 13 and 24 admeasuring 185 Sq. Yards, all together admeasuring a total extent of 714 Sq. yards, situated in Sy. No. 673/2 of Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District ard the propertlr of petitioner No. 2 in plot No. 9 admeasuring 2OO Sq. yards, Plot No. 10 admeasuring 175 Sq. yards, and plot No. 11/part admeasuring l5O Sq. Yards, all together admeasuring a total extent of 525 Sq- yards, situated in Sy. No. 673/2 of Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District as illegal, arbitrar5z, and in violation of Articres 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently dfuect the Respondents, pa-rticularly Respondent No. 4, not to interfere with the property of petitioner No. 1 in plot Nos. 4 / A, 5, 6 admeasuring 325 sq. yards, plot No. 7 admeasuring 204 Sq. yards, and plot Nos. 13 and 24 admeasuring 1g5 Sq. yards, all together admeasuring a total extent of 714 Sq. yards, situated in Sy. No. 62312 ot Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur MaIdaI, Sangareddy District; the property of petitioner No. 2 in plot No. 9 admeasuring 200 Sq. yards, plot No. 10 admeasuring 175 Sq. yards, and Plot No. 1l/Part admeasuring 150 Sq. yards, all together admeasuring a total extent of 525 Sq- yards, situated in Sy. No. 673/2 of Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Ma,da1, Sangareddy District a,d pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,, 2. It is stated that l st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of total extent of land admeas unng 274 square yards in plot Nos.4/A, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 24 in Survey No.6Z3/2, situated at Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.g164 of 2o04 dated 2 CVBR, J W.I'.No.87O4 of 2O25 2a.O6.2OO4, 8049 of 2003 dated 30 08'2003 and 8C48 of 2003 dated 30.08.2003 arrd 2^d petitioner is the absolute owner and possesSor of total extent of land admeasuring 525 iquare yards in Plot Nos-9' l-0 and ll/Part in Survey No.67312, situated at Ameenpur Village ' Ameenpur Manda'l' Sangareddy District, having purchased the same through registered sale deedsbearingDocumentNos.T666of2oo2dated2o.|1.2oo2,7665of2oo2 dated2o.11-2002and8256of2oo2dated78.12.2002.Itis;furtherstated that originalty lanrl admeasuring Acs' 2'1O guntas in Survey No'673/2 belonged to one Bantu Mallaiah, who obtained Gran Panchayat layout permissiononl5.O2.lgToanddividedthesaidlarrdintoplots;,alienatingthe same to individuals through his registered Genera'l Power 'A'ttorney holder namely Sri Kaiidinidl Narsimha Raju uide GPA Document No'l164 of 1987 dated 23.O7.1 987 from whom the petitioners purchased the subject property and had become absolute owners and peaceful possessors of the subject property since the clate of their respective purchase w"ithout erny intermption from any person for more than two decades' It is ftLrther that the petitioners, in order to prevent encroachments, have constructed tin roof sheds and encircled the subject plots with temporarJr compound wall' The grievanceofthepetitionersisthatorlt4'O3'2O25and17'03'2025'th:e4th respondentalongwithrevenueoflicialsattemptedtointerferewiththe possession of the petitioners without any prior intimation or notice and on 17 .O3.2O25, the revenue officials forcefully demotsherl part of the 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.87O4 of 2O25 petitioners' property without following due procedure of law. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. considered the submissions made by thq rearned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the subject land claimed by the petitioners is forming part of the Government land. Therefore, on inspection, having found that the petitioners are proceeding with the constmction of compound warl/temporary tin shed roofs, the respondent authorities have resisted the action of the petitioners. It is further contended that the plots purchased by the petitioners are not in approved layout either sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat or by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the petitioners are not entifled to claim that they have constructed tin roof sheds and the compound warl. It is also further contended that even for temporary constructions/construction of compound walls, permission is required from the local authority. In the absence of permission being obtained, it cannot be said that the petitioners have constructed a compound wart or a tin roof shed and the respondent authorities are dispossessing the petitioners from the said ]and. I : t 4 CVBR, J W.I'.No.B7O4 of 2O25

5. Be thai as it may, the Honble Apex Court )n Raiendra Kumar Barjatga and another us. U.P. Avas Euann Vikas Pqrishad and othersl, has directed the respondents therein to follow due procedure for removal of illegal and unauthorized constructions

6. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if any of the subject lands being occupied by the petitioners are forming part of the Government lands, the respondents are directed to conduct the survey after issuance of the notice to the petitioner ald all other parties who are interested and affected with the sard survey and after conducting survey, if it is identified that the subject lands being occupied by the petitioners are Government lands, the respondent authorities are directed to initiate appropriate action for removal of the existing structures by following the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga (supra) strictly in accordance with law. 7 . With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There sha-ll be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if arry, shall stancl closed. I i I Civil Appeal No.1.4604 ot 2024 dated 17.12. 2024 //TRUE COPY// I SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY EGISTRAR SE:CTl N OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat building, Hyderabad, T S, State ofTelangana. ' :

2. The District Collector, $4ngaleddy District Collector 3. The Revenug Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Revenue DiVision, Sangareddy

4. ihe tahsitUar/Mandal RgvenUe Officer, Ameenpur Mandql, rlangareddy District. Eiskict.::':' i i\ 5 6 7 !,SK L]S One CC to SRI MD AMER ALt, Advocate IOPUCI .lwo CQs to GP FQB REVENUE High Cgurt for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad IOUTI Two CD Copies I N- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 1 \ ORDER WP.No.8704 of 2025 DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1RE s 14 ,C 11 APP 2m5 i- o I