High Court · 2025

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 0310512025 directing the petitioner to remove Lava Kusha Water purifying center constructed by the petitioner on assignment plot of his mother in Sy. No.4 and also his purchased land in Sy. No.214 at Pathapally village, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District, though the petitioner have constructed the said shed after obtaining permission of the Grampanchayat and also without making any encroachment on the village road, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the above Lava Kilsha Water purifying bunk of the petitioner without following due process of law, as the petitioner constructed the said shed on his own land without encroaching upon any village road. lA NO: 'f OF 2025 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 issue interim order directing the 3rd respondent not to demolish Lava Kusha purifying water center constructed on the assignment plot' of his mother in Sy. No.4 and also purchased small extent of land in Sy- No.214 at Pathapally village, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER MPPZPP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.15O83 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition has been hled seeking tl-e following relief: " ---to i-ssue an order or direction more partia)larlA one in the nature of Wnt of Mqndanrtus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated O3/O5/2O25 directing the petitioner to remoue Laua Kushn Water trrurifying center constntcted bg the petittoner on assignrnent plot of his moth,er in Sg.No.4 and c'lso his purcLLased land in SA.NI.214 at PdthapallA uillage, Pebbair Manda| Wanaparthg Distict thottgh the petitioner haue cnnstructed the said shed afier obtaining pe|7,r'issio,a of tlle Grampanchagot and also witlwut rnaking ang encroachrtent on the uillage road as tllegal unlatuftl contrary to latu and consequentlg direct the respondents not to dernolish the aboue Laua Kusha Water pui,fging bunk of tlw petitioner u.,tthout foltowing due process of lau as the petitioner consttucted the said shed on his otun land uithout encroaclLing upon anA uillage road and pass.. ."

2. Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned colrnsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appeadng for respondent Nos.2 arrd 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of adrnission. Notice in respect of respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

3. Brief facts ofthe case: The petitioner is claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the open plot admeaslrring 16.98 sq. yards situated at Pathapally village of Pebbair Mandal, Warraparthy District and the sarne was purchased through registered document by paying '' r.- 2 valuable sale consideration and also obtained Dharani passbook vide Khata no.6o284 in the name of his wife Smt. P. Jyothi and thereafter, applied to the Tahsildar for grant of Nala conversion permission in respect of the above said property. He further averred that the Governrnent granted assignment patta certificate in favour of the petitioner's mother, narnely P. Yellamma, to the land in Sy.No.4 on 06.O9.2O11. Since the above purchased land in Sy.No.214 and also assignment patta lald of his mother situated in Sy.No.4 are adjacent to each other and accordingly, the petitioner constructed temporary shed for establishment of Lava Kusha Water Center by obtaining permission frorn the 3.d respondent Gram Panchayat ald he has been running said water plarrt since, 2Ola by supplying purihed water to the villagers at cheapest cost. The petitioner further averred that the petitioner obtained certificate of registration for manufacturing trading and supplying of bottled and packaging mineral drinking water in the water treatment plant ald the same is being renewed frorn time to tirne arrd the same is valid up to O4.12.2017. Respondent No.4, who is Ex-Sarpanch of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat, bore grudge against the petitioner and at his instance, respondent No.3 issued notice on 03.O5.2025 alleging that the petitioner constructed the mineral water shed without obtaining permission -11 3 from the Grarn Panchayat and also encroached upon the village road ald directed the petitioner to remove the mineral water shed within a period of ttrree (3) days from the 'date of receipt of the notice. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation on O5.O5.2O25 to the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, stating that the petitioner has not encroached upon any portion of the road and eking or.rt his livelihood by running the rnineral water plant and tre also supplying the mineral water to the villagers at iow cost. The villagers also submitted a representation to the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, on O5.O5.2O25 requesting hirn to issue necessary directions to respondent No.3 not to remove the mineral water plalt. But, respondent No.3, without following ttre due procedure, is trying to demolish the mineral water plant of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner has established the mineral water plant in the year 20 18 after obtaining necessary permissions from the cornpetent authorit5r and since then he has been rrnning the said plant ald the petitioner has rrot encroached r.rpon €rny portion of the road as alleged. The willagers also subrnitted a representation on O5.O5.2O25 stating that the petitioner is supplying the rnineral water with low cost in the village and the mineral water plant is 4 required for the villagers. The petitioner also submitted a representation before the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, on O5.O5.2O25. Respondent No.2, without giving reasonable opportunity ald without considering the representation submitted by the petitioners is trying to demolish the mineral water shed.

5. Per corrtra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, issued notice on 21 .O4.2O25 directing the petitioner to submit explanation within three days on the ground the petitioner constmcted the mineral rvater shed by encroaching the road. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation. The Grarn Panchayat has rightly issued the irnpugned notice for removal of unauthorized construction within a period of three days and the petitioner is not entitled for aly relief.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to permit the petitioner to subrnit explalation to the impugned notice, dated O3.O5.2025, and on such explanation, respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat may be directed to consider the sarne and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has not opposed the said 5 submission.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the materia-l available on record., it revea-ls that respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat issued notice on 21.04.2025 as to why the water shed should not be removed from the subject property and directed the petitioner to submit explalation within three (3) days. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner has constructed mineral water plant in the year 2O 18 in Sy.No.214. However, the petitioner has not submitted explanation to respondent No.3, pursuant to the notices, dated 21.O4.2024 or O3.O5.2O25. On the r other hand, the petitioner submitted representation before the District Collector on 23.O4.2025. The petitioner is also enclosed copy of the representation submitted by the villagers to the District Collector, dated O5.O5.2025. The petitioner has not subrnitted any explanation to the impugned notice.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circurnstatlces of the case and in view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to subrnit explalation to the impugned notice dated 03.05.2025 within a period df one week from the date of receipt of a copy of \ \ - 'ij 6 this order by raising all the grounds which are available under law. On such explanation, respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks by giving on opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. TilI such time, respondent No.3 shall not take arty coercive steps in respect of the subject property.

10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcTbN OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Panchayat raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat, Pathapally village, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 J 4 E 6 7 PSK. PSK VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 4/0512025 ORDER WP.No.15083 of 2025 \ I *.ffi';:. .s '). --.\ ):l I Il.l \ '_+-i- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS