Veerabathini srinivas v. 1. 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 proceedings of the 2nd resportdent dt.Ogt[7t2O21(served to the petitione r on 25tO7t2021) vide File No Gl177212021 inseekingtodemolishthecompoundwallofpetitioner'shousebearingnumberl. s_15/3 situated at Arvind nagar, Jagtiar Municiparity, Jagtiar District without giving proper opportunity or hearing as illegal' arbitrary' without jurisdiction' u nconstitutional, contrary to law, in violatlon of principles of natural justice and in violationofArticlesl4and2lofconstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlysetaside I I r t. I 1 the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt.Ogl)7 /2021 (served to the petitioner on 2510712021) vide File No.G1177212021 in respect of petitioners house bearing number 1-5-15i3 situated at Arvind nagar, Jagtial Municipality, Jagtial District pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Between Rajesh Kasturi, S/o Raja Narsimlu, Aged around 65 yrs, Occ; Business, R/o H No.3-1-366, Christian colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ....VACATE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. Veerabathini Srinivas, S/o Lingam, aged 50 yrs, Occ ; Business, R/o H.No..l- 5-17l1, Arvind nagar, Jagtial, Jagtial District. ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., IMunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderibad, T.S. J The Jagtial tvlunicipality, Rep. By its Commissioner, Jagtial, Jagtial District. ..RESPONDENTS/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 stay order dated 02.08.2021 in l.A.No.1 ot 2021 in Wp No. 17830 of 2021 and to thereby dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRt PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDy Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : SRI MOHD OMAR FAROOe The Court made the following ORDER i I I i r HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRITPETTTION No.17830 0F 2021 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliel "...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRIT oF MANDAMUS a""r"ri.g'the pro""edirrgs of the 2"d ."rp"J", ing-ol-zozt (served to the letitioner on 25-07-2021) vide FileNo.Gl/TT2l202lirlseekingtodemolishthecompoundwallof ^otirirrner's house bearing n *b". l'5'1513 situated at Arvind nagar' ]rerT"r District withour giving proper opportunity ffi;'ili*rriry ;%il;";;"ii"Ja, l-.ui"".y, withour jurisdiction, unconstitutional, principies ol-nal'9ral justice and in ;;r';;1";*; ri"rLl,itr ol e.ti"r", lq andit of constinrtion of lndia and consequently set aside the same and Pass' ' '" i,., 'iotation'ot

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.l-5-15/3, situated at Arvind Nagar' Jagtial Municipality' Jagtial District. It is submitted that originally the land admeasuring Ac.ll-21%guntas in Survey No'413 was owned by one Mr' Rama Goud who sold the same in favour of Mr' Kasturi Veeresham and three (3) othersinequalsharesi.e.Acs.2-35guntaseach,throughregisteredsale deed bearing document No'37 of 1954' Mr' Kasturi Veeresham' who purchased the land admeasuring Acs'2-35 guntas' died leaving behind his four (4) sons by name Mr' Kasturi Rajanarsimlu' Mr' Kasturi Raj anarsaiah, Mr. Kasturi Ramana and Mr' Kasturi Laxman as his legal 2 representatives; they partitioned various properties acquired from their father and in the partition, Mr. Kasturi Rajanarsimlu was allotted the properlies situated in Karimnagar and the other 3 brothers were allotted the land admeasuring Acs.2-3 5 guntas in Survey No.4 13, situated at Mothe shivar, Jagtial Mandal; the land was converted into house plots and were sold to various persons including one Mr. Gajula Laxmi Narayana to an extent of 335.50 square yards under registered sale deed bearing document No.106g of 1993 dated 17.06.1993. Later, the petitioner purchased the said plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.1956 of 2000 dated, 27.r.2000 from the Mr. Gajula Laxmi Narayana. Thereafter, the petitioner made application dated' 17.02.2001 to the municipality for construction of building in the said plot and he was granted building permission vde proceedings No.369lc112001 dated 08.05.2001 and construcred a house with compound wall in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Subsequently, H'No'l-5-15/3 was alrotted to the subject property and the petitioner had been regularly paying property tax to the municipality for the past more than twenty (20) years. ,,1 J It is submitted that while so, respondent No'2 issued notice dated 3. 07.04.2021 stating that respondent No'3 made complaint dated

12.01.2021to the municipality alleging that the petitioner has constructed compound wall by occupying 15 feet private accesb road' Respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to remove the compound wall within a period of seven (7) days. The petitioner issued reply dated 15'04'2021 to the said notice denying the allegations made by respondents No'2 and 3' It is contended that respondent No'3 has no locus standi to make complaint against the petitioner as he is not a resident of Jagtial' Respondent No.3 is the son of Mr' Kasturi Rajanarsimlu (the elder son of Kasturi Veeresham who purchased the land in Survey No'413 from its original owner). Respondent No'3 had no share in the land in Survey No.413, however, respondent No'3 created a fabricated will deed' which never saw the light of the day' On the basis of the said fabricated will deed, respondent No.3 created a padition deed and he started claiming the plot on the eastern side of the house of the petitioner' tt is submitted that three (3) other brothers of Mr' Kasturi Rajanarsimlu alienated the plot on the eastem side of the house of the petitioner to one Mr' Kokkula Ramesh in 201 1 and Mr. Kokkula Rimesh, in tum' sold the same in favor 4 s .,1 of one Mr. Alishetti Eshwaraiah through registered sale deed bearing documentNo.6029 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.3- managed to obtain mutation in the revenue records. in respect of the plot on the eastem side of the petitioner's house which is not an agricultural land. Aggrieved by the same, Mr. Alishetty Rajaiah filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial (RDO) and the same is pending. Respondent No'3 filed suit for bare injunction in o.S. No.267 of 201g against the petitioner and two (2) others. In the said suit, respondent No.3 never claimed existence of private access road adjacent to the above said plot nor he has alleged that the petitioner encroached the road. However, as an afterthought, respondent No.3 lodged complaint against the petitioner before respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon the private access road which is not vested in the municipality.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10.05.2021 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 20.05.2021 for personal hearing. However, due to second wave of the covlD-lg, the matter was adjourned and the petitioner was informed that further notice of hearing wilr be given. It is submitted that no further 5 notice was given to the petitioner' As such' the petitioner submitted another reply to respondent No'2 on 20'07'2021 and requested not to initiate further proceedings as the matter was lis pendence (sub iudice)' 6 Leamed counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner received the impugned order dated 09'07'2021 on25'07'2021' through registered post. Respondent No'2 who got transferred and relieved from the post ort 22.07 '2021' passed the ante dated order without conducting any enqulry and without givtng further notice to the Petitioner' The impugned order was passed by deciding the title of the pettttoner which is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No'2' The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity and the alleged private access road did not vest with the municipality. Therefore, respondent No'2 has no jurisdiction to decide the disputes of encroachment of private lands' 7 . Heard Mr. A'Praneeth' leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No'2 Municipality, and Mr' Mohd' Omar Farooq' learned counsel for respondent No'3; and perused the material on record' 6 {! r)

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that though detailed counter has been filed, respondent No.3 does not have any objection if this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded for fresh enquiry. 9' Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed even on merits as the suit in O.S. No.16 g of 2021 filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 for perpetual injunction in respect of the subject properq/ has been decreed. Altemativety, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case, the matter is remanded by allowing the writ petition, respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the judgment in O.S. No. 16 g of 2021 and the petitioner may be given liberty to submit detailed additional reply.

10. In the light of the above submissions made by the leamed counsel for respondent No.3 conceding for allowing this writ petition and for conducting de novo enquiry, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.07.2021 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct fresh enquiry, in File No.Gl/7721202_l by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner and respondent 7 No.3 are given liberty to submit additional representatior/reply/ documents during such enquiry' This exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt ofcopy of this order. There shall be no order as to coSts' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in this writ Petition stand closed' //TRUE COPY'/ I I ,?',]+Y'#t,L'iflik SECTION OFFICER To MuniciPal Adm f Telangan inistratio a at HYd State o Government' Secretariat,

1. The PrinciP al Secretary to DeleoPment Department' 2. fhe Commasslon er, Jagti al MuniciPali ty, Jagtial, Jagti al District. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MC PL ADMN AND UR BAN DEV ELOPME Court for the State of Telang ana at HYderabad. IouTl 4. One CC to SRI P LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI MOH D OMA R FAROOO, Advocate (oPuc) 6. One CC to SRI PUTT A KRIS HNA REDD Y, Advocate (oPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies n and Urban erabad, T-S NT, High SA BS i t ((o ( i ftE S )4). t\ 3, 21 AUB nE s( z C) * o .\-F HIGH COURT DATED:17t07t2025 I ORDER WP.No.17830 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I t a d I