High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. I a J 4 5 ,..PETITIONERS The State of Telanoana Rep by its principal Secretary Municipal Administration and"Urban obuelopmeniiie!rir"#""n't"bL"r"tariar Hyderabad. Hyderabad Disaster Resnonse and Asset Monitorinq and protection Agency, Represented by its Commissi"n;;buJ;;'Bh;rr"n,'n'vELruoro 500003. The Dammaiquda Municioality, Rep by its Commissioner Dammaiguda Hyderabad 500083. Mohd Nizamuddin, S/o Late Mohd Fakruddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o H No 1172 Ambedia.rlag* C"iir; [i."Ogrt i ;itirl"" Keesara Mandat Medchat Matkajsiit Di;[[i -"'-"'' ""' Mohd Khaja Moinuddin, S/o I ate Mohd Fakruddin, Aged 42 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H No 1108 Ambedkii N;s;C;6;y, Xnr"ol,grdi'riilriu Keesara Mandat Medchal Malkajgiri Oiitiict -- -"'' ""' Both,are rep by their GpA Holder Akkenapally Sampath Kumar s/o Late Ram Reddy aged Apartments officers corony sainathpuri or n s niJr.rlga.. ectL-iyoeraoao _49 years occ Bqsiness rlo ftit trtb CZ Susfreef Mansion

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the -oe circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'cJurt may pleased to issue a Writ/s, order/s more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondent fuo. 2 in intending to aemoiisn the compound vvall and room and intending to disposes the petitirrners from land admeasuring Ac. 1.1C Gts in Sy. No. 78/4/1/3, Ac. 1.00 in Sy. f{o. 78lAl1l2l2 and Ac. 0.10 Gts in Sy. lno.78lAl1l2l1, Situated at Cheeriyal ,rillage, k,-.esara Mandal, Medchal IV'lalkaj,giri [)ist., without passing any orders and without considering the registered documen,s, and Pattedar pass books, as being illega l, arbitrary and violative of Articles 2l and 300-4 of Constitution of India and cr:n:,;equently direct the respondent \o. Il not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioneni in respect of land admeasuring Ac..1.10 Gts in Sy. No 78lA/1/3, Ac. 1.00 in Sy. lilo. 1'BlN1/212 and Ac.0.10 Gts in Sy. No. 78lAl1t2l1, Situated at Cheeriyal village, keesara Mandal, Ivledchal fr/alkajgiri Dist , lA NO: 1 OF 20i15 Petition ulder Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circunrst,ances stated in the affidavit filed in srpport of the petition, the High Court rray br: p,1ssss6 to issue interim direction s to :he respondent No. 2 not to interfere and nct to disposes the petitioner land admeasuring Ac. 1.10 Gts in Sy. No. 7BlAl113, Ac. i.00 in Sy. No. 7BlAl1l2l2 and /\c. C .'10 Gts in Sy. No. 78lAl1l2l1, Situated at Cheeriyal village, keesara Mandal, N/edchal Malkajgiri Dist., pending disposal of thr: rr,,rit petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KOWTURU PAWAN KU[tIAR SC FOR HDRPA Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR DAMMAIGUDA Il,IC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.15264 oF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed before this Court by way of House Motion.

2. Heard Sri A.Venkata Ma5rur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kowturr.r Pawan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Disaster Response and Protection Agency and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Darnrnaigr.rda Municipality, appearing lor respondent No.3.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioners clairns originally one P.Bikshapathy was the absolute owner and possessor of land ad-measurin g Acs.lO.22 guntas in Survey No,78/A and Ac.1-OO in Survey No.79, respectively situated at Ctreeriyal Village, Kesara Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District., Out of which, he sold land admeasuring Ac.2.2O guntas in Sr-rrvey No.7a/A in favour of petitioner No.1 and one K.Mohan Reddy r.nder a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.7792 of 2012, dated ll.l2.2ol2 and their narnes were also rnutated in 2 -! the revenue r,:cords and they were also issue<l pattadar passbooks. Siince then the petitioners are in continuous possession anrl enjoyment of the said land and they also constructecl compound wall and laid fi:ncing in 1.>art of the subject lan,l and also doing cr.ltivation as on dertt:

4. It is lurther stated that when the thir<l 1:rarties are interfering witr their possession and enjoymenr- over the sr.rbject pr3perty and trying to encroach the subject property, the r.rnofficial respondents herein fil,=d a.written cornplaint, dated 13.O3.2025 before. ther ofhcial respondents, fr;llowed by personal visits, as no :rction has been taken b1' the official respondents, the r-rnoffrcial respondentrs filed W.P.No.l1926 of 2025 before rhis Court and this Cotrrt disposed the said Writ Pertition on

22.O4.2025 directing respondent Nos.2 and !i l-herein to forthwith tzrke action on the complaint, dated 7'.1.O3.2O25 and pass applopriate orders, in accordance rvi t_h law by affording olrpo:-tunity of hearing to the re.spectirre parties therein ancl all other concerned/interested persrons.

5. Ttre grievance of the petitioners is that on 2I.O5.2O25. respondent No.2 and his stzrff carne to the &* -...-_"--=- 3 subject property and threatened thern with dire conseqlrences and further stated that they wor.ld dernolish the subject propert5r tornorrow i.e

22.O5.2O25, though petitioners have strown their subject documents that the subject property was allotted by HMDA in the year 2O11 to the petitioners. However, without considering the docurnents filed by the petitioners including rnutation proceedings and also without conducting any enquiry the respondent No.2 is trying to illegally demolish the cornpound wall and threaten to take away the possession of the subject land on 22.05.2025, hence learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners subject property without following due process of law.

6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared virtually.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and having perused the rnaterial on record, it is clearly ewident that there is a direction given by this Court to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein to forthwith take action on the rt*, ri6: p!l' 4 l complaint, dated 13.03.2O25 given by unolhcial respondent herein, and I)ass orders, in accordance with 1aw, by affording opF,ortunity of hearing to the all other concerned/intr:rested persons. However, il- is clzr.imed that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, respondent Nos.2 and 3 zr.r-e trying to encroach the subj,ect property without follou.ing the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.lt926 of 2025 on 22.O4.2025

8. Learnr:d fit Counsel appearing for rr:spondent Nos.2 and 3 sr:bmits that in pursuant to the <fir.ections of this Cor,rrt passed in W.P.No. 11926 of 2OU,5, dated

22.04.2025, they have already initiated the enquiry on

20.O5.2O25 and further subrnitted that tlre said ,:nquiry is pending and not yet concluded, as on today and the cornplaint, dated 13.O3.2025 Iiled by the unofficial respondentrs h,3rein will be consider during th.e course of enquiry anrl further subrnitted that Joint Inspection was conducted alcng with respective parties including petitioners iand they fairly conceded that no reasc,ned order 1S passed on [he said compliant till date, rsuch, the question o1- rr:spondent Nos.2 and 3 or thei:r. officials a:; r\ 5 visiting the subj ect propert5r as alleged by the petitioners does not arise and fi. rther stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 w'ill follow due process of law before initiating any action on the subject property and the.?etitioners are only apprehending that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 will demolish the subject property.

9. Recording the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, it appears that petitioners are only apprehending ald it is only an asslunption .of ttre petitioner that the respondents rnay demolish and dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. It is also evident frorn the record that and the subrnission made by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the said enqr.riry was conducted 20.O5.2O25 and there was also joint inspection made by the respondents along with the petitioners and also it is evident that the petitioner is also a party to the enquiry.

10. In view of the submission rnade by respondent Nos.2 & 3 that they are not intending to take any coercive steps pending decision on the enquiry. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have no carlse of action f I t1! ?'.i *l€. *; :]t' *i \ for approa,:hing this Court for freslr d irectiol'r, as the respondent Nos,.2 and 3 have adrnitted ttrat the:y will not interfere or dernolish the subject property withoul- following due procerlur= contemplated under law anc1 without passing Iinal r>rders over the complaint of tlre unofficial respondents, as directed by this Court in W.P.N<.r.17926 of 2025 on 22.O4 '.2025. 1 1. Hence fc,r' the said reasons this Writ l:)etition is disposed of, recording the subrnission madt) by the respondents Nos.2 & 3 and directing the respc,ndents to comrnunica.te r-he order passed by the respondents in the said enqr-riry to the parties al1 concerned, until then the respondents are directed not to take any coerr:ive steps against petrtioners in respect of the subject property. Mi,scellaneous applications pending, if ra.ny, shall stand closed \L-i! -. -Z SD/- P. C;OWRI SHANKAR n PEPUTYREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .\ SECTION OFFICER --.. ' , To, 1 The Princioal :lecretary Municipal Administration Departme:nt S ?cretariat Hyderabad. Urban Development

2. The commiss oner Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset lvlonitoring and - proteiiron Agency, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad 500003 3. The Commissioner Dammaiguda Municipality, Dammaiguda l-'lyderabad

4. One CC lo SIll. V VENKATA MAYUR Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC 1o SFll KOWTURU PAWAN KUMAR SC FOR HDRP'I\ [OPUC] 6. One CC 10 SFll PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR DAN/[VA|(;UDA IVIC loPUCl ,.,l: I I I \ 7 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADtVtN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies 8 KKS KKS l !.A(]A'I'ION COURT HIGH COTJRT DATED:2lr-10512025 ORDER WP.No.15264 of 2025 I I ..a. k :. :l '.*__ C J o rJ 1q '( 2 S tutrY liE .,. o * DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( \