The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3.

5. fl i:'{{,r,,"*,*"*it,,eg'*=;,i*i}ffi'''T'[ffi li{-r*iffi ::" gi, Reven ue De partment' Keesara M a ndar' gfl;r;i Fi:lrna:',[#xu %?', ni-^qii"Jov oistrict office at Keesara - rmissioner, Having its -M,,",:p?llv"*:fri1:["il'3:.3[,'id:i;'#:",ift;,. -r',riiu,r, ifi",Nd;;; Office OPPosite to uoverr R.R.District. Respondent No' 5 is impleaded as per C'O'dt' 16'07'2024 in lA No' lruizq' -er c'o' dated 3/812009 in wPMP No' {9481/2009 R3&4 are impleaded as per u'L'' lrar=u \'rur'vvv "' - ...RES,ONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the respondent No.1 , in demolishing the shed belonging to the petitioner herein and situated in land totally admeasuring '1'167 sq yards' comprising of plot Nos.16,17,18 and '19, bearing premises No 5-411 ' situated in Survey No'599'qf village and Gram Panchayat Nagaram' Mandal Keesara' Sub-Dist Shamirpet' '.: r-.tfq] . ,-:7 -::t.. .v .' 2 Ranga Reddy District, (consisting of demorished structures rikr: sheds, part of compound wali and other semi_demolished structures) as illegal, arbitrary, irratronal and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner herein and consequentry directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) being the amount of damage caus€,d to the above mentioned properly of the petitioner due the said illegal action of clemolition l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 09 WPMP. NO:14 21 0F 2009

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired i. support of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents / responde4tq, their gfficers, agents, subordinateg or any person and / or persons not ta interfere with the possesslon of the petitioner, in any manner whatsoever, over and upon the demolished shed and Stfuctures situated in land totally admeasgring 1,107 sq. yards, comprising of ptot Nos 16,'17,18 and 19, bearing premises No.S-4l1, situqted in Survey No.599 of village and Gram panchayat Nagaram, IVrandar Keesara. sub-trist. shamirper, Ranga fteddy District, (consisting of demOlished structures like sheds, parl qf compound waI anc other semi-demglished st[qctures) petition schedure premises WP NO: 11165 OF 2009 . Between Nomula Trirumal Kumar, S/o. Late N.Balraj Busingss H.No.4_32l1 Sai Baba *nt N a g a r N a g a ra m 1v; K ees'a ra 1rvt ) R ]! n I ol io i.tri "t .,.PETIT|ONER AND 'l . The Gram Danchayat, Nagara.m (M) Keesara Rep.by the panchavat - ., P::'Rl:ly g[9e- a1.Ndo^a1gm 1My rees)ii,nanga-neaoy biii,i"i' z. rne utstrrct Coflector._Office of the Collector REgnga n,eOOy Oiitrict 3 rhe superintendino fnsineer, oep'artrieni ,iiiiiigiii;-Ailiyr'lioy ci.."r", . Office at Erra A/tanz'il, Hyterabad. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Department. Keesara Mandal, _ Rangareddy [)istrict Office at Keesara. 5 rhe Nagaranr rvrun ic.iparity, Represented. by its commissioner, Havinq rts 'rv"si.;;,--rrl;;;,.,ri"rui,Jxoll, to G6verhment uisrr 5"r,o6r, R1:3,j,.ffi..,e Respondent No s is impreaded as pep c.o.dt. 16.07.2 024 in rANo. 1t2024. (R3 &R4 is imoteaded ad per court order dt.3_g_2009 in wpmp 19479t2OO9l, ...RESPONDENTS ) 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 plga,saQ to iss.qe a writ order or dirqction qole particularly one in tfre nature- of *rn oi ,rnor.us declaring the action of the respondents more. partivularly.Rl in demolished the hguse belonging to thq petitioner situafed on land totally admeasuring 302.88 Sq yards' sltuated in Sy'N0 599 of Village a0q Grampanchayat Nagaram(M) Keesara Sub-District Shamirpet'Ranga Rqddy District: (Consisting of dgmolished house and pa(ly demolished cqmpound Wall) as illegal arbitrarY irrational and violative of the fuqrdamental rights of -the petqtioner heiein and coDsequently directing the Respondents 1apC2 !e eal F Sqm oi Rs 24,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Fqgr Lakhs only) being the amount of damagq caused to the property of the petitioner due to the said illegal action of demolition of the above lnentioned premlses r.A. NO: 't oF 200o WPM P. NO: 14347 0F 009 Pgtitiqn under Section 101 ePC praying that in the circumstanQes stated in the affidavit filed in qupport of the writ petitiol' the High Court may be pleased tq ,u., oid"r, to dire9t thq respondents thetr officers agents subordinates or any person qnd or pergans not to interferq with th9 possession of the pptitioner in any mannet whatsoever over and upon demolished house and the partly demolished compound wqll situ4ted in land totally 302.Q8 Sq yards situated in Sy N9 599 of Village and Qrampanchay2t Nagaram(M) Keesara Sub-District Shamirpet' Rang4 Reddy District ' lA NO: 1 o F 2025 Between:

1. The District Collector, Office of the Collector R-anga ; +i.,I -il;"ijri Reren,e officer' Revenue Deparl - nangaiedaY District Office at Keesara ffS;l.1 'rlt"t!3:ra Mandal, ....'ETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND 1 Nomul Nagar i,lJ:i#(''f ro3LiJt"n,ifi 5"$'#t1,:Jnffi"1' H No.4-32l1 Sai Baba ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER I

2. The Gram Panchavat Nagaram (Ilrl) Keesara Rep by the Secretary office at J. tne UUpe,ntendlnq tngineer, Department of lrriqation. Rangareddy Circle. I Office at Era Manz'il, Hvlerabad 4 The Naoarrm Municip-arity, Represente! .by its commissroner, Having rts office opposite to Goveinment Hign scrr6ol,'-Nigaram. virage Mandar, R R.District -'- .r., R5 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 16.07.2024 in tA No. 1/2024 (Respondent No. 2to4 are not necesgary parties to this petition) .....RESPONDENS/RESPONDENT Petition under Section i 51 Cpe praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may, be preased to vacate the ilterirn orders dt: 09.06.2009 gfanted in wp.rvp No 1,1347 of 2009 in WP No 11165 of 2C09 and dismiss the Writ pefition Counsel for the petitionesr: Ms. AARIFA TMRAN KHAN counsel for the Respondent No.1 in both the w.ps: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT BAJ 6, RURAL oever_Opmier,ir Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&4 in both the W.ps: AGp FOR BEVENUE counsel for the Respondent No.3 in both lre w.ps: AGp FeR TRRTGATT,N AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT Counset for the Respondent No.S in both the W.ps: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY. SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.11145 AND 11 165 0F 2009 COMMONORDER: Heard Ms. Aarifa Imran Khan, leamed counsel for the petittoners, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, Ieamed Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr' Putta Krishna Reddy' learned Standing Counsel apBearing on behalf of respondent No'5 Municipality' '

2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions are wife and husband and their properties are adjacent to each other' Therefore' /ls invoived and parties in both the writ petitions are one and the same' As such' both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by way of common order.

3. COMMON CASE OF THE PETITIONERS: i) The petitioner in W'P'No'I11 45 of 2009 is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot Nos'16' 17' 18 and 19' total admeasuring 1,167 square yards in Survey No'599' situated at Nagaram Village and Municipality, Keesara Mandal' Medchal - Malkajgiri District, on the strength of registered sale deed bearing documeni 2 KL.J 11'I No:i ItI45 & l 65of2009 No.6856 of 2004, dated, 24.06.2004 and register.ed gift decd bearing document No.8230 of 2007, dated,02.07.2007. \Vhereas, peritioner in W.P. No. 1 I I 6,s of 2009 is the owner and possessor of adjacent properby, admeasuring 302.88 square yards on the strength of hvo registered sale deeds bearing document No.12423 of 2006, 19546 of 2006. dated 28.08.2006 and 30. 1 I.2oo6,respectively. ii) As far as plot Nos.l6 to 19 are concemed, the petitioner _ wife obtained sanotion for construction of shed and accordingly she has constructed th'e same' She has arso obtained 10 Hp power connections to the premises bearing No.4-3l2. She has been paying propefty tax as well as clectricitv. iii) As far as property of petitioner - husband is concerned, his property (pctitio,er in w.p. No. I I 165 0f 200g) is situated on the westem side as well a.s northem side of his wife,s property. He also obtained sanctioned plan dated 26.06.200g iv) Whrlc so, on 01.06.2009, he received a tctephonrc call from the office of respondent No.l. Then, he went to the subject property where the Revt:nue and Irrigation officials are there who infbrmed him that the subject property is in FTL and that they are going t. dismantle the strucfures which are in existence over the subject property. 3 KL,J w.P. Nos.l I145 & I tt65 0f2009 v) Accordingly, without giving any notice and opportunity on the next day i.e.,02.06-2009 in the moming hours, respondents came to the subject property and with the help of police got demolished the structures over the subject property, such as shed' compound wall' grills fixed over the compound wall and approximate built up area of 1500 square feet etc. Thus, the acts of the respondents are illegal and arbitrary vi) On account of illegal acts on the part of the respondents' the petitioners sustained loss of an amount of Rs'30'00 lakhs and Rs'24'00 lakhs respectively and, therefore, they are entitled for the same'

4. CONTEN TIONS OFTHE REVENUE OFFTCIALS: i) As per revenue records of Nagaram Village of Keesara Mandal, Survey No.598 admeasuring Acs'7'35 guntas is recorded as Komativanikunta covered by water and the petitioners purchased its adjacent land in Survey No'599 out of which part of the area comes under surplus stream course of said Komativanikunta' ii) No constructions are allowed upon the water bodies' As per procedure, one has to procure a permission fiom the competent authority to start any construction in areas near FTL/Bu ffet Zone' limits of I l 1 I i 1 i I i I 4 KL.J !i'.P. N( r.l 45 & I I165 0f2009 :al NAlA/Cheluru/Lakes etc. The same is also applicablc to the patta iii) on noticing the same in the year 2009,thethen authorities by issuing noti,le to the petitioners demolished thc affected area under surplus strcam course of the said Komativanikunta. iv) In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief much less relief sought in the writ petitions including seeking compensation of the aforesaid amounts. s. co \TENTI ONS OF THE TRRIGATION OFFICIALS: i) R,:iterating the stand taken by the Revenue Officials, the Irrigation Department further contends that the subject lands come under surplus streant crourse of the said Komativanikunta, which is Irrigation source and rc,ceives water from the chain of tanks on the upstream, narnely i. Lrtlirarnma Cheruw, ii. Nasin Cherul.u, iii. K-opulakunta. The water from thc tank is tlischarged into Dayar Kunt,r, Nagaram village' The Komativanikunta is a preliminary notirred tank with Lake lD-2744 with an FTL area of 2.594 acres. ii) During monsoon, the surplus water from the upstream tanks have to be discharged through the surplus channel of Komatir anikunta to 5 KL,I W.P. Nos.l ll45 & 1t 165 of2009 avoid inundation of colonies on the upstream of the tank. The enfire catchment area of the tank is urbanized and surplus channels of all the tanks have to be maintained obstruction free to avoid inundation of colonies on the upstream side. iii) The subject property is just below the surplus weir and wherein compound wall and shed were constructed which was hindering free flow of flood from the tank and also may lead to inundation of colonies. Therefore, to avoid the inundation of upstream colonies and to safeguard the tank, the then Irrigation Officials informed . the then Panchayat and Revenue Officials to remove the encroachments in the MFL of surplus course of tank. iv) As per Irrigation Act,7357 F and G.O.Ms.No.168 MA & UD Department, dated 07.04.2012, no constructions are allowed in the MFL/Buffer Zone of Nalas/Channels.

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that it is the specific case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the respective subject lands having purchased under the aforesaid registered sale deeds. They are in possession of the subj ect lands. They made constmctions by 6 KL,J U P. No:i.l1145 & lll65 of2009 t!, :;, t spending husc m61gy. The official respondents witho ut giving any notice and opportunity, all of a sudden by preparing a norice with ante_ date demolished the entire shuctures over the subject property and thereby they suffercd huge monetary loss and injury. Therefore, they sought to dt:clare the action of the respondents as illegal apart from seeking com,ensation of Rs.30.00 rakhs and Rs.24.00 lakhs respectively. iD whereas, the respondents admitted about demolition of structures over the subject property, however, they contended that the subject land Ls -just below the surplus weir and the compound wall and shed were constructed hindcring free flow of flood from the tank and it may lead to inundation of upstream colonies. Therefore, by giving a notice to the petitiorlcrs, they have demolished the structuresi. In view of the same, it is clear that the respondents demolished the structures that were in existence over the subject property. The only issue that has to be seen is whethcr the respondents have issued any notic,e or given opportunity to the petitioners bcfore taking steps for demolition. If not, whether the pe tittoners are entitled for compensation? iii) Perusal of record would reveal that the then panchayat Secretary said to have issued a notice dated.2g.05.2009 directing the petitioners to r':move/demorish house within five (5) days from the date I 1 KL,J w.P. Nos I I145 & 11165 of 2009 of receipt of notice, or else steps will be taken for its removal as per rules. Accordingly, the demolition had taken place on 02.06.2009. But, the alleged notice does not disclose service of notice on the petitioners for the reason there is no signature on it to the effect that such notice was served on the petitioners. It appears that the said notice was prepared with ante-date as contended by the petitioners to cover up their illegal action of demolition. Thus, there is no prior notice or opporrunity gtven to the petitioners before taking steps for demolition of structures as contended by the petitioners. iv) It may be true that the subject property is obstructing the ftee flow of water from upstream and thereby it may lead to inundation of upstream colonies. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the subject lands and they are claiming right over the said property on the strength of the registered sale/gift deeds' They have obtained permission for conskuction. When such is the position, the rcspondents should have proceeded in accordance with law before taking demolition. They cannot take the law into their hands and act on their own without following due process of law. Therefore, the acts of the respondents in demolishing the structures over the subject property are illegal and arbikary. 8 KL,J W.P No,.lll45 & llI65 of 2009 v) Nou,. coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the subjcct structures were demolished on 02.06.20r)9, They have hled the present writ petitiorrs in the year 2009. They have claimed an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs and Rs.24.00 lakhs. of course, thcy have not stated the details of basis on which the said claims ryere made. Demolition took place sixteen (16) years ago. As discussed supra, the action of respondents in demolition of structures as illegal. fherefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensatory damages, wh,ch include the loss of structures etc. The respondents did not place any n-raterial to disprove the quantum of amount claimed by the petitioners. Iherefore, keeping in view the extent of land and the structures marle thereon and that the demolition was 16 years ago, it is just and reasonable to award the aforesaid amounts as cla imed by the petltloners

7. CONCLUSI ON: W.P. Nos.11145 and. 11165 of 2009 are allowed directing respondent Nos.2 and 5 to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/_ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) and Rs.24,00,000/_ (Rupees Iwenty }iour Lakhs only) to the p,:titioner respectively towards loss sustained by them on account of illegal demolition of structures over the subject property,, I I l I 0 I I I i i l , i I I 9 KI-,J W.P. Nos.l I145 & 11165 ofZOO9 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed. i That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' TUESDAY 'THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, : Mandal, Keesara, Collecl lvlandal Kee sara, R or, Office of the Col

1. The PanchaYat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Nag ar?|.t.l strict. Reddy Di r, Ranga Reddy District Office at Na 2 The District The S,upe rintending Engineer, DePartmqn t of lrrigation, Rangateddy Circle, ffice at Erramanzii, Hyderabad 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Reven l're DePartment, Keesara Mandal, RangareddY District Office at Keesara 5. The Nagaram MuniciPalitY, Represe nted by its Commissiolre Having its Office Oppqsite to Governmgnt High School, Nagarani, N q9e.lam Mandal, 6 iiilEc'i;' Ms AARIFA IMRAN KHAN,Advo-cate.L9PUCI i Y,l,ii b[J"td"-cb" ioR p[N'cH'riiAi'nnL. a 3.qBnr oEvrroptuENr, H ish ' ctirrtiJit'u Siate of Telansan4 at Hyderabad [oUTl 8 il;''i6.''i; "ci;'ron-A'EVENiTE:Fii;h e;''t'roitn'" state or reransana at Hvderabad [OUT] s Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION . AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENI , High cl'itiior. ir'u btut" of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUT] 10 5;;'b;"t#Hr',i,ijrin iinisnNx-i{e-oov. 5c ron Mutttclpnttrv R.R.District. t., toPUCl

11.Two OD CoPies BM E.s 6 HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 COMMON ORDER WP,No's.1 1145 OF 2009 AND 11165 OF 2009 1yt E S I"q Ic 2 5 fiAB 2025 (n( 2 t o,:SPATCHEO j t ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS m