The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitio rer: SRI RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR R EDDY Counsel for the Respo-tdent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER i I l I ;i l HON'BLE fiRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY UIRIT PETITION No.955 4 of 2o25 oRDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: ". ..to issue an Zppropriate writ, order or direction; more partianlarlg one in the nature of urit of Mandamus: a) bg declaing the oction of Respondents in interfeing tuith proposed house constntction in spite there being o ualid house permission uide pennit No-)103/BP/3121/2023' dateti 22.08.2O23 in the petitioners' house plot to an extent of 8787 square' gords in Sy'No 343/ 10 situated ot Ameenpur Village ond Mandal, Sangareddg Distict' shouing the status-quo ord'er dated 02'02'2023 in W.P.No.2847 of 2023 is illegal, arbitrary and uiolation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 3O0A of Constitution of India: and b) consequentlg direct the officiat respondents not to interfere uith the proposed house construction or pass such other order or ord.ers as this Court deems fit and pioper in the circumstances of the case..." The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and 2. possessors of the open land admeasuring 878 square yards in Sy.No.343/ 10 situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy 'District, *ithin the limits of Ameenpur Municipality, having .: ',4:: a z purchased thr) same under the registered sale de:d bearing Document No..l'1358 of 2021, dated 30.09.2O21. It is fur ther stated that the vendor of the petitioners and their predecessors have purchased the subject property under the registered sale deeds. It is also stated tha after purchasing the subject prolcrty, the petitioners have obtaine d necessary building permission for cons truction of residerrtial bu lding vide permit No.O1O3/BPI 3721 12023, dated

22.08.2023.

3. It is thc lurther case of the petitioners that ,"r,hile they rvere proceeding wit'r the construction work, respondent Nc s.3 and 4 startcd interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyrnent of the petrtioners over :he subject property and also the constru,:tion work. On questior-ring;, the respondents informed them that [here is a Status-quo order dated 02.O2.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2847 cf 2023, which was fiied by the vendor of the petitioners regarding boundary disputes between the vcrdor of the petitioners and ISPF land in Sy.No.343/ iO.

4. Thc grievrrnce of the petitioners is that although rhey are not parties to W.P.11,r.2847 of 2023 and the vendor of the pe itioners is now no way ( )()ncerned with the subject property, t -re ofhcial respondents arr. frequently interfering with the construc,_ion work. Therefore, they rysls constrained to fi1e the present Wrjt pe jition. J

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. I to 4 and Mr.Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners have purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing document No.40358 of 2021, dated 30 09 '2021 and that their vendor and their predecessors have purchased the subject property under the registered sale deeds Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have obtained building permission for construction of residential building vide permit No. O 1 03 / BPl 3 l2l I 2023, dated 22.08.2023 and proceeding with the \ construction work { I Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearlng

7. for the respondents submits that there is a dispute with regard to the identification and localisation of subject land forming part of Sy.No.343/ 1O and the same is abutting to the Government land' It is also submitted that the subject land was assigned to the vendor's vendor of the petitioners as such their vendors are not entitled for alienation or transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners as such the petitioners are not having any valid document or right to proceed with the construction. 4 f

8. Since it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents without issr,rinll any notice interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner i over the subject property ar-rd also u,ith the construction a <:tivity, the ends of justice would be r net, if the respondents ar e directed to conduct an enquiry; in accor dance with 1aw, by issuinll notice to the petitioners and after cons idering the objections beirrll submitted by the petitioners. If the r.:spondents found any part of the subject land being form part of thc (.overnment land, thcy are z 1 liberty to take action, in accordance with law.

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of As a seqrrel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, r'any, shall stand closed. Nc order as to costs. - SD/. P. PADMAI\IABHA REDDY DEPUT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -. 1 \I SEC].ION OFFICER ' The Principar sit-'cretary Revenue_ D^e^p^artment secretariat BuirJings saifabad, Hyderabad. St;rte of Tdlangana- 500Cj22.- . The District Co l,:ctor, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, Telanr lana State. TheRevenue [)rvisl6nrg Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy Dis rict, Telangana The fVandal Revenue Officer, Ameenpur, Ameenpur Mandirl, Sangareddy District, Telang,a na State. I[:|. 3i Ts:'"ux]:'bfl[:""0'r rMunicipa litv, Ameenpur Mand rr, sangareddy One CC to SRt RAN/AVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REI)Dy, Advocate loPUCl or:-T to SRI trUrrA KRTSHNA REDDY, SC FoR MCPL [opuC] Iffi":r?:"1?"tii,FoR nevrruUE' High cou( for the state o1 retangana ar \ To, 1 2 3 4 5 o 7 B

9. BSR GJP Two CD Copies aA) HIGH'COURT DATED:07104i2025 ORDER WP.No.9S54 of 2025 ./, ,:) i:. ., i€ J c) 22 I{PR lffi <(r Z r) ,5 I o5, sFrnT.lt g-v * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COISTS I (r\