High Court · 2025

Chowdharigudem Mandal, Rangareddy District. 5. Mr. Palwai Sreedhar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 6. Palavai Srinivas, Rajendranagar R.R. District. 7. P. Bharatamma, Alwal, Hyderabad. 8. P. Prabhakar, Old Alwal, Hyderabad. 9. P. Manohirr, Old alwal, Hyderabad.

10.P. Nirmala, Rajendranagar, R. R. District.

11. P. Srikanth, Rajendra Nagar, R. R. District.

12.P. Satish Kumar, Rajendranagar, R.R. District.

13.P. Ramachandraiah, Old Alwal, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

14.P. Yadagiri, Alwal, Hyderabad.

15.P. Sreehari, Alwal, HYderabad.

16.P. Laxmi Pathi, Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

17. P. Chiranjeevi, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. (Respondent Nos.5 to 17 are impleaded as per Court Order daled 19-7-2024 in l.A.No.3 of 2024) .....RESPONDENTS 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, to declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings dt. 16- 2- 2024 in respect of residential open plot admeasuring 400 sq. yards situated at Jilled Grampanchayat and Village, Jilled- Chowdhariguda Mandal, Rangareddy District as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings dt. 16- 2- 2024 issued by the Respondent No. 4 in respect of residential open plot admeasuring 400 sq. Tards situated at Jilled Grampanchayat and Village, Jilled- Chowdhariguda Mandal, Rangareddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 not to interfer.e in the peaceful possession of the petitioners property in respect of residential open plot admeasuring 400 sq. yards situated at Jilled Grampanchayat and Village, Jilled- Chowdhariguda Mandal, Rangareddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:4 OF 2024 Between: I

1. Mr. Palwai Sreedhar 2. Palavai Srinivas, Rajendranagar R.R. District 3. P. Bharatamma, Alwal, Hyderabad. 4. P. Prabhakar, Old Alwal, Hyderabad. 5. P. Manohar, Old alwal, Hyderabad.

6. P. Nirmala, Rajendranagar, R. R. District. 7. P. Srikanth, Rajendra Nagar, R. R. District. B. P. Satish Kumar, Rajendranagar, R.R. District. 9. P. Ramachandraiah, Old Alwal, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

10.P. Yadagiri, Alwal, Hyderabad. '1 'l . P. Sreehari, Alwal, Hyderabad.

12.P. Laxmi Pathi, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. '1 3..P. Chiranjeevi, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. AND ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 to 17

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Rangareddy District at Kongarakalan. 3. The Tahsildar, Jilled- Chowdharigudem Mandal, Rangareddy District. 4. The Panchayath Secretary, Jilled Grampanchayath and Village, Jilled- Chowdharigudem Mandal, Rangareddy District.

5. Dr. Sai Krishna Katepally, S/o K. P. B. Krishna, Aged 39 years, Occ Doctor, Rl/o H. No. 2- 2- 6471115, Flat No. G- 2, Dharmasoudha Apartments, New Nallakunta, C. E. Colony, Shivam Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad- 500013. 6. Sri Sandeep Kumar Katepally, S/o K. P. B. Krishna, Aged 38 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, Rl/o Flat No. G- 1, Balaji Enclave, Plot No. 15, Baghyanagar Colony, Behind Rilliance Fresh, Rajendranagar, Hydersha Coat, Hyderabad- 500091. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction dated 03-05-2024 in l.A. No, 1124, in W.P. No. 12888 oI 24 and dismiss the petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI V.T.KALYAN Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI P.KISHORE RAO Counsel for the lmplead Respondent Nos.S to 17 : SRI V.RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.12888 oI 2o24 ORDER: ln this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relie f "....ro issue a uit, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wnt of Mandamus to declare the action of ttle Respon.dent No.4 in r)ssuing proceedings dt 16.2.2O24 in respect of residential open plot admeasuing 40O sq gards situated at Jilled Grampanchogat and Village, Jilled Choudhariguda Manda| Rangareddg District as illegal arbitrary and uiolatiue of pinciples of natural justice and consequentlg set aside the same and pass......" 2 Brief facts leading to hling of this writ petition are that the petitioners claims to be the absolute owners and possessors of the residential open land admeasuring 40O Sq.Yards situated at Jilled Gram Panchayat and Village, Jilled-Chowdhariguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have applied and obtained the construr:tion permission uide proceedings No.ll6lBP/2023 and 1i7/BP|2O23, both dated 23.08.2023 for construction of two houses i.e., in 2OO Sq.yards each totalling 400 Sq.yards. While the petitioners have started construction and were proceeding r,r,ith the same, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 16.02.2024 asking the petitioners to stop the construction work on the ground that there is a complaint received from respondents No.S to 17 and that there is an legal dispute in respect of the said property. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been liled.

3. This Court uide orders, dated 03.05.2024 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 had directed the respondents not to interl'ere with the construction acfivity of the petitioners in pursuance of the building permission uide proceeding No. 116 lBp/2O23. dated 23.08.2023 and the said interim orders were being extended from time to time. In the meantime, respondents No.5 to 17 have entered appearance on seryice of notice and have filed a counter affidavit and even the official respondents have a,lso Iiled their counter affrdavits.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 17 submitted that against the building permission granted to the petitioners, the respondents have preferred an appeal No.3329 of 2024 before the appellate authoriez i.e., District panchayat I Officer, Ranga Reddy District, which is the delegated authority under respondent No.2 and that the said appeal has been heard, but the appellate authority is not able to pass any orders due to the pendency of the writ petition and interim orders granted by this Court and that 19.02.2025 is the next date of hearing. He is I therefore seeking a direction to the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders in the appea-l.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, objected to the same and submitted that in the writ petition Iiled by the petitioners, the respondents cannot seek any relief for disposal of their appeal. He further submitted that the appeal liled by the respondents is not against the building permission granted to the petitioners, but it is against the enquiry report of respondent No.4. 6 Learned counsel for the other respondents have relied upon the averments made in their counter affidavits. 7 . From the above submissions of all the parties, this Court finds that at the behest of respondents No.S to 17, the impugned notice datecl 16 .O2.2O24 has been issued, but there is no calcellation ol the building permission granted in favour of the I I petitioners. Vide interim order dated O3.O5.2O24, ttris Court had directed the respondents not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioners. However, there is a provision of appeal against the building construction permission granted to a person and the respondents seem to have availed the same by filing an appea,l before the District Panchayat Offrcer, Ranga Reddy District. I

8. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate course of action in this case would be to direct the appellate authority, the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District to pass orders in the appeal without being influenced by any of the observations of this Court in this writ petition, w.ithin a period of one month from today. The interim order granted by this Court shall continue till such time. The writ petitioners a-re however directed not to damage or cut the tamarind trees without following due process of law.

9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIST S TION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayairaj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Disirict Collector, Rangareddy District at Kongarakalan' 3. The Tahsildar, Jilled- Chowdharigudem Mandal, Rangareddy District' 4. The Panchayath Secretary, Jilled Grampanchayath and Village, Jilled- Chowdharigudem Mandal, Rangareddy District.

5. TWO CCS t; GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU!

6. One CC to SRI V.T.KALYAN, Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to SRI V.RAVI KUMAR, Advocate (OPUC) B. One CC to SRI P.KISHORE RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 9. Two CD CoPies To SA @. \ I C.C. TODAY STAT€ $F- 1 9 a .t>.: .d- ,/ .' // 12 ttB 2fr6 i D L' 7 { HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ORDER WP.No.12888 of 2024 ,/,ti \' DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ^) L ) S,a \Y