High Court · 2025

'- ;ii;: liaiiarmi Colony Pecldashapur Thanda, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga l0.Smt.AnupaArunamma,W/oA.Venkatesh,Aged;bout40years'Occ'House .1 l.Vislavath Bujji, w/o Vislavath Redya, Aged about 44 vears. occ. House wife, ' ' tilirc;ilii,ionv peoalliipuiiitihoi' sna.ihaba'd Mandal Ranga Reddv district

12.Buvani Suiatha, W/o B Raju, Aged about 42 ys.ats' occ liouse wife' RJo Plot '' "N;1";b: l';,i'i;;;;; c;il;v ii6Jo,.n"p" rhanda' :lramshabad rrilandal "3.,YffiJ1?i.?;il,',"r[3Liii"i',3?'#3i:^?ft 5:H:;Jl'R"5l"r'Jl!l',ffi " Ranga ReddY clistrict ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Revenue Dr. B Telanoana. Reo.bv its Principal Secretary, Department of R Am"bedkar Secrdtariat Buildings, Hydcrabad

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy district Kongarkalan Ranga Reddy 3.TheRevenue)ivisiona|officer'shamshabadrevenuet)ivisionKongarakalan, Ranga ReddY )istrict.

4. The Tahsildar. Shamshabad Mandal Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Peddashapur Tanda, Grampanchayal F"p'bV. its Panchayath Secretary " P;;ir;h;;ur'ianda, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Redriv district 6. The Station llouse Officer, Shamshabad P S Near Pedda Shapur village Ranga ReddY District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stat<rd in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueaWritorderordirectionmoreparticularlvoneinthenatureof WRIToFMANDA\4US,declaringtheactionoftherescondents2to5in interfering/ dispossession of the petitioners from their pe;tr;eful possession and enjoyment of the Hruse Plots in Plot Nos 6-19/1' 6-14/6tvl, 6-26, 2-55' 6-26115' Plot No' 4' Plot No 5, Plot No. 70, in Sy.No'220, Pedasharprur Tanda village and Grampanchayath, !ihamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy disl.rict without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Artic,es 14,21 and 3004 of the constitution cf lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere/d isposses r; the petitioners from their peaceful possr:ssion and enjoyment of the above stated House Plots pending disposal of the main writ petition. IAN O: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere/d ispossess the petitioners from their peacefulpossessionandenjoymentoftheHousePlotsinPlotNos.6.19/1,6- 14l6tv, 6-26, 2'55, 6-26115, Plot No. 4, Plot No 5, Plot No' 70' in Sy.No'220' Peddashapur Tanda village and Grampanchayath, Shamshabad lrilandal' Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. HARSHEET REDDY LAW FIRM SRI S. SATYAM REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI K. MAHENDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRt H' SOMAIAH EZRA SASTRI' AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY' S.C. FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER *d.- I I i I I l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR:REDDY trrRIT PETITION No.11510 of 2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is fited praying this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in interfering u,ith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their house plots i.e., Plot Nos.,j-19l1, 6-14l6M, 6-26, 6-26/15, Plot Nos.4, 5, 70, situated in Sl.No.220, Peddashapur Thanda Vil1a55:, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangr Reddy District without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 2l tntd 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, pre.y.ed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stzrted that the petitioners were assigned house site pattas as per :he policy enunciated by the Governrnent for various extents ranging from 15O to 3O0 square yards end they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaicl house plots by constructing houses after obtaining necessary p,ermission from respondent Nc.5 and have been residing therein. 'lhe grievance of the petitionersr is that the respondent authorities are interfering with their pear;eful possession and enjoyment over the house sites assigned to tht:m, without following due process of law. 3. Considered the submissions made by Sri S.siatyam Reddy, learned Senrcr Counsei representing Sri K.Mahendar Reddy, 2 CVBR, J wp I l5l0 2025 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent 7 to 4; Sri Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.S and the Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.6 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners have constructed the houses in the house sites allotted to them and the said houses are also assessed to property tax and they have paid propert5r taxes to the local authorities and since around three decades, the petilioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been residing therein.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that the petitioners have not obtained valid construction permissions from the competent authority and they have encroached some extent of the Government land and therefore, only for the purpose of identification an inspection was conducted and they did not initiate any action. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, if the petitioners have encroached any Government land, they will follow due process of law. ; g;'5 3 CVBR, J Wp ll5l0 2025

6. In vieu' of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate tr: dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent aut horities 1-ro t [o interfere with the peaceful pos,session of the petitioners or r:r the subject property, in any r1i:rnner. If the Govcrnment is having any claim over the prope rty, which is in possession of the petitioners or subject properfr' has not been assigned to the pctitioners and the assignment cr'rtihcates issued in their favorrr arc nol genuine, the respondent authorities are entitled to co nd uc t an enquiry and strictly follorv the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjdtgd and another vs. U.P. Aoas Eaam Vikas Parlsho.d and othersl, before initiatirrg any action for removal of the existing structures. 7 . With th,' above observations, this Writ Petitic r is disposed of. Tht:re shall bt: r'rr> order as to costs.

8. As a scqtrcl, the miscellaneous petitions 1tr:nding, if any, shall stand cLrsed. 1 Civil Appeat No. 14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 //TRUE COPY// SD/. F'. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Slate of Telangana, Dr. B.R. Ambedkirr .Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The District C rllector, Ranga Reddy District Kongarkalan Ranga Reddy. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shamshabad Revenue Division Kongarakalan, Ranga Reddy District. *ry) 4 The Tahsirdar' shamshabad Mandar shamshabad, Ranga Reddy distirct. 5 Ihq panchayath Secretary, pedda: t p"ooudnrp",iiianoa, srrimindo,o r,r,,EilflBH!, [Slff ,o,.fi :?mpanchavat lHn:tflt:?t/3,:i"o,oo'*,.' Shamshabad P S Near Pedda shapur virage / \ ' ?^ 1"" Court for the State of Teiangaiu

7. One CC to SRt K. MAHENDAR REDDY Advocate tOpUCl B. Two CCs to SRt H SOMATAH EZRA SASTRI, A_Gp for Assignment, High CC to SRt KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, S.C. for Grampanchayat [OPUC] 'o ly&r:n ,i"fi ror Home, Hish court for rhe Srate of retansana at MP w. "llivo"irurd. IOUTI 1 1 . Two CD Copies , , :=% HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 (\ rv\E STA ,t o ( L ) ,)_,+ :!g APfl 216 !.- t , :. - ' _\._--t-:_-.- .,, * l/ _'r\ \' ' -/ - .r/' ORDER WP.No.11510 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1