ABHILASH GOUD KANDIKANTI v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 respqndents in not protecting the valuable government as illegal, improper, arbitrary, un constitutional and against the principles of natural justice consequently suspend 2nd respondent proceedings No.'000312/LO/P|g/HMDA/2021 in file No. 046930/SMD/LT/U6/ HMDA/0607/2021 in respect of survey no. 115 under the guibe of S.No. 114, Mangalpally, Adibatla Municipality. a lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct survey, demarcation, fixing of boundaries, protect the valuable government land in survey no' 115' Mangalpally' Adibatla 'trlunicipality pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 3: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM' GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI MAMIDMNU MADHAV REP' FOR SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA The Court made the following: ORDER I ( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Petition (PIL) No.57 of 2022 Dated: 15.L2.2025 Between: Abhilash Goud Kandikanti ANI) The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad &J others. ORDER: ... Petitioner Respondents Heard Mr. Srikanth Sutari, learned counsel appeaing for the petitioner, Mr. Muralidhar Reddy l(atram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Mamidi Venu Madhav, learned counsel representing Mr. Iftishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel for \ \ respondent No.4. 2 \\ ' ''Fq! Z. Peritioner aPproached this Court in the present Public - Inreresr Littgatton (PIL) to direct respondent No.3 to conduct survel, demarcadon, fixation o[ boundaries and to protect the valuable Government land in Survey No.1 15 of Mangalpally Village, Adibatla MuniciPalirY

3. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter-affidavtt.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has referred to the staternent made by respondcnt No.3 ^t Paragraph 7 of the counter- affidavrt, which is extractcd hr:reunder: ,,7) It is submitted that the Mandal Sutweyot, and Mandal Girdawar of this office have been inspected the land in Sv.No.l15, total extent Ac.0-24gts situated at Mangalpally village and conducted the sutwey f demarcaton and fixed the boundaries. Out of which, an extent of r\c.0-07gts was allotted to pimary Agriculrute Co-operative Sociery OACS) and the same building is existed over the land and an extent of r\c. 0.10 gts is covered by road leading from Hyderabad to Nagariuna Sagar. In the balance Govemment land, it is noticed that certain encroachments are existing. \renture Arch of the said Iayout made in Sy.No. 114 patta land) and an extent of (r0 Square Yards covered in orie open plot are found existing in thc said layout were removed and also one Puncture shop and welding shops pertaius to othets which were existing since long back were also been demolished and taken into the Government custody. The photographs in proof of demolition are enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court."

5. From the above, it is clear that the encroached venfure arch existing in the layout made in Survey No.11,5 Qatta land) and an extent of 60 square yards covered by one open plot has a / J J been removed. It is also stated that the authorities have demolished one puncure shop and one welding shop pertaining to others, which were existing since long back and have taken the land into Governmenr custody. 'rhree photographs of i t removal of encroached venture arch and rwo shops are annexed to the counter-affidavit.

6. Eadier, counrer-aflfidavir was fi.led by respondent No.4 also. Respondent No.2 had also filed a counrer-affidavit to which reply has been filed bv the petirioner. 7 However, upon hearing learned counscl for the parties and after going through the affidavit of respondent No.3 Zt palz'graph 7, which is extracred above, we are satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner regarding encroachmenr on Survey No.115 of Mangalpally village, Adibatla Municipality, has been a redressed by removal of encroached venture arch and two shops and taking the land into GovernmenL custody

8. Therefore, the instanr ITPGIL) is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 Miscellaneous applications pending, rf any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ANT REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To,

1. Ihe Principal Secretqry lYlqnr.cipal Administration & Urban Development _ P."p?$ment, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad ?. lfe piqec!or-!, Planning HMDA Ranga Reddy Distriit q rhe T^ahsildar,.lbrahiTp.qtrtrl Qi.v1slon Rang-a Reddy District retangana 4. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH SUTAR|, Advocate tOeUCl 5. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, Advbcate tOpUCI 6. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the siate of telangana. 7. Two CD Copies touTJ BN $, I , x t a HIGH COURT DATED i1511212025 ORDER WP(P|L).No.57 of 2022 -;t HE Si,r. { I o 1 I JAN 2026 * * .\',-: -.1 DtsPoslNG oF THE WP (PtL) WITHOUT COSTS It g I