Sri Puli Koteswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates in interfering and demolishing the cgmpould wall of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 250, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block - B, Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagualapally Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice or without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary, violative or Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.s and his sub-ordinates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot I o. 250, admeasuring 400 square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. '1 35 part, situated z t Block B, GoMhami Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram MandE I Sangareddy District, without following due process of law and without issuing an1 rotice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m a / be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere I ith the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 250, admeasuring 4(tt 5qusr. yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block-B, GoMhami Ne1ar, Edulanagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. I ithout following due process of law and without issuing any notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ESLAVATH RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5: SMT. S. SRA\ ANTHI, AGP FOR RE:.,ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR MUNICIPAL At)l IINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMEN'- Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA RE DDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER -/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.l76O9 of 2O22 THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Sri Puli Kotes'*,ara Rao. AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary to Government , Revenue DepaJtment, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (5) others. ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Eslavath Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record

2. Learned counsel lor thc petitioner submits that the petitioner hled the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.S and their sub-ordinates in interfering with and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner in 2 respect of petitioner's Plot No.25O, Block B, ir Sy.No.135 part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagu r apeilly Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (for brevity, ,,the subject property") ald threatening to disposses s tl-re petitioner from his plot, u,ithout issuing anv notice and v ithout following due process ol law, as iltegal and arbitrar5r.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furtl-r,: ' submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed inr( rim order dated

08.O4.2022 directing the official rcspondents not o interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject prop(r ly. Hou'ever, in spite of lapse of more thal four years, the respot.r lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyin I the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In r i rw of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorrties not to int :rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject 1r operty without following due process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Gov,:.p66n1 pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in pr ssession of the subject property, the respondents will not inle rfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject property, r,, thout following k 3 due process of law and requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. In view of the submissions made on either side, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due procedure of law. There shall be no order as to costs

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The State of Telangana and 5 Others, Rep by its- The Special Chief Secretary to Govt, Revenue department, BRK Bhavan, T.S- Secretariat, Hyderabad'

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt., The State of Telangana, MA and UD Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy' 5. The Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram IVlandal, Sangareddy District. 6. The Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality, Tellapur' Sangareddy District' 7. One CC to Sri Eslavath Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. One CC to Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, SC for Municipality[OPuc] 10.Two CC to The GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

11.Two CD Copies TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1 711212025 , f/',| lJ o .iAii 2o26 .Z :.( \ !l It , ORDER WP.No.17609 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS U