High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further steps/proceedings in pursuant to notice dated 22.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent in respect of Petitioners house property bearing No. 1-21 admeasuring 55.00 Sq-Yards situated at Singampally Village and Grampanchyat Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petilion before this Honble court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PULIKANTI SREENIVAS RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ORDER: W.P.NO. t4994 0F 20t9 In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.3 in issuing notice dated

22.06-2019 directing the petitioner to remove hut/house bearing No. 1-2 l, admeasuring 55 Sq.yards, situated at Singampally Village and Grampanchyat, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in concerned Grampanchyat records as per the petitioner's application dated 18.O6.2O19 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the prcsent writ pctition as stated by the writ petitioner are that the petitioner's mother was in peaceful possession of the subject land [rom the year 2O1O and that the petit,oner's mother used to pay property tax to the ofhce of the respondent No.3 and thereafter, in the year 2018, the petitioner's mother requested the authorities to provide title in respect of the said land and after due enquiry, on

23.08.2018 the respondent No.3 granted title confirmation deeds in respect of the said property along with door numbcr 2 and boundaries and since then, petitioner's mother has become the absolute owner and possessor of the said property. On

11.03.2019, the office of the respondent No.3 has also issued a demand notice to the petitioner's mother for payment of property tax and accordingly, his mother paid the property tax on the same da.,,. Thereafter, she conveyed the subject land to the petitioner by way of rcgistered sale deed and the petitioner is in peaceful enjovment and possession of the same without any hirrdrance whatsoever ever since the date of purchase. It is submitted that thc petitioner made an application dated

18.06.20 l9 to the respondent No.3 to mutate his name in the conccrned rr:cords and the same was received under proper acknou,lerlgnren t and on 22.06.2019 the impugned notice \.r'as issued to rem()vc rhe structures within a period of three days and as it w;is an illegal notice, the petitioner has approached this Court bv fiting thc present writ petition.

3. Vide Interirn Orders dated 22.07.2019, a direction to maintain statusjuo was passed by this Court and is in force till date.

4. l-earned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondcnt No.3, has hlcd a counter affidavit denying the 3 averments of the petitioner that the petitioner's mother was in peaceful possession of the subject land and that she was granted title deeds. It is stated that a hut was erected in the subject place by the mother of the petitioner illegally without having any permission, which was used for residing at the time of making construction of another house in a different place and that the petitioner and his mother fraudulently obtained a certificate of ownership by assigning a house bearing No.l- I 1 without issuance of any proceedings therefor and without having any valid documents, even without issuance of any construction permission. It is stated that there is no rulc or law for the issuance of such an ownership certificate and that based on the said ownership certificate, the petitioner has got executed a registered sale deed from his mother. It is submitted that except for this document, no other documents are filed to show that the subject land belongs to the petitioner's mother. It is submitted that one G.Srinivas and others have complained to the MPDO, Amanga Mandal, about the illegal occupancy of the petitioner and consequent thereto, the MPDO caused an inquiry, which revealed that the subject land is in Suruey No. 141 and belongs to one Radhakishan, wherein an old well was situated and since it is abutting the way that leads from 4 Singampally to Polepally and was hazardous for ingress and egress of thc commuters the v;ell was filled up and the land was handed over to the Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that while the petitioners were constructing a house in other place, they used to reside in the hut erected temporarily in the subject land and have hatched a plan to grab the same and have obtained the ownership certificate from the then Panchayat Secretary and filcd this u'rit petition. Therefore, he prayed for vacation of the interim orders and dismissal of the writ petition. Along with thc countcr affidavit, he filed a report of the MPDO.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, tl1e petitioncr was in possession of the subject land while they were constructing anothcr house in another site. The petitioner claims to have made an application for mutation of the house in his name. [t is also not disputed that the house number has been allotted and the property tax has been received. ffom the petitioner's mother. The respondents cannot therefore now turn around to sa-v that the subjcct land is not the land of the petitioncr's mother. The respondents have not taken any steps for canccllation of the owncrship certificate issued to the petitioncr's rnother. However, it is stated that there is no such 5 rule for issuance an ownership certificate. The ownership certihcate was issued in favour of the petitioner's mother, is signed by the Panchayat Secretary and is dated 23.08.2O18 and also contains the house number and boundaries to the same. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have to follow due process of law to resume the land, which according to thcm, is Gram Panchayat land. Therefore, the respondents arc at libcrlv to follou,due proccss of law to evict the petitioncr lrom thc subjcct land

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Therc shall be no order as to costs

7. Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The District Panchayatraj Officer' Ranga Reddy District' 2. The Executive Officer' Singampally Gram Panchyat' Singampally' Ranga 3. The Panchyat Secretary, Singampally Gram Panchyat' Ranga Reddy District' 4. The principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department' Secretariat' State of ReddY Diskict. Telairgana, HYderabad. One CC to SRI PULIKANTI SREENIVAS RAO' Advocate' [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI c f) 7 Two CD CoPies- BSK GJP SK. HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 e \ o c) ? 0 JAll 2M6 I I * r :q. Cl ORDER WP.No.14994 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9 ( 9v

18. o,.4