The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to I I I i extend the interim order granted in W.P. No. 1728.1 of 2023, dated O5lO7l2O23, until further orders. lA NO: 4 OF 2023 Between: The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC), represented by its Commissioner, Warangal Proper and District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Jangam Siddhartha, S/o. Sudhakar, Age. 28 Years, Occ. High Court Advocate, Rl/o. H. No. 7-7-36611|C, Mulugu Road, Kapuwada, Hanumakonda Proper and District.

2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kazipet-Circle-ll, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC), Warangal Proper and District.

4. The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA), represented by its Vice- Chairman, Hanumakonda. 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 orders granted in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in WP No.17281 of 2023, ...RESPONOENTS I dI:051O712O23. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR KUDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29083 OF 2023 Between: 1 . K. Lavanya, Wo Pasunuti Sharath Kumar, age-d. about 40 . years Occ. Housewif6 rep.by GPA Holder K.Veera Swamy, S/o K.Sambaiah, Age 70 years, Occ. Buslness rlo 3-1-1711172, Hanuman Nagar' Kakatiya Colony, Hanamkonda

2. M. Ramesh, S/o Late.Veera Swamy, aged about 52 years Occ Business r/o 8-7-56, Girmajipet, Warangal

3. M.Rajitha, Wo M.Venkateshwarlu, aged about 39 years Occ. Housewife r/o 5-1 1 -1206, Hanuman Nagar, Hanamkonda ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rept by its Secretary, MA and UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 3 4 The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Rept by its Commissioner, Warangal The Dy. Commissioner, The'Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Circle 2, Kazipet, Warangal District Jangam Siddartha, S/o Sudhakar, aged about 25 Occ. Business rlo 7-7- 36611 lC, Mulugu Road, Hanamkonda-506007 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Couli may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to :l in preventing encroachment of public4oad as shown in .Annexure - I annexed to this writ petition at Kapu Vada Bhadrakali layout colony, forming part of Sy.No.B31 of Hanamkonda revenue village, Hanamkonda as -provisions of the Telangana illegal and arbitrary besides contrary to the Municipalities Act, 2019, violative of Articles 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent . Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action for removal of the encroachment made by the respondent No.4 on the public road abutting the properties of the petitioners (blocking free access from East to West i.e. road leading from 30 ft. wide road to 60 ft. wide road) in Kapu Vada, Bhadrakali layout colony, Hanumakonda Revenue village, Hanumakonda. 1A NO: 1 OF 2023 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 2 and 3 herein to provide free access by removing the obstructions on the public road in Kapu Vada Bhadrakali layout colony, Hanumakonda Revenue Village Hanumakonda pending disposal of W.P No t2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR M/s. KANUMURIKALYANI Counsel for the Respondent No.'t: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN OEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.VENUMADHAV WRIT PETITION NO: 29213OF 2021 Between: Jangam Siddhartha, S/o Jangam Sudhakar, Age. 23 years, Occ.-Business, Ryo. H.No. 7-7-36611lC, Kapuwada, Mulugu Road, Hanmkonda, Warangal - 506007. ...PETITIONER AND

5. O The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad -5OOO22 The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal District, Telangana - 506002. The Deputy Commissioner, Kazipet - Circle-ll, GWMC Warangal District, Telangana - 506002. The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA), Rep. by its Vice- Chairman, Hanamkonda, Telangana 506001 . Smt. Lavanya Kambampati, Wo Pasupunuti Sharath Kumar, aged abo-ut 40 vears Occ. Housewife, Ri.io H,No.7-7-366121, Kapuwada, Mulugu Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal District-506007. Respondent No.5 is impleaded as per C.O. dl. 06.02.2023 in |A.NO.1 of 2022. .-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 an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings vide File No. Cir-lltTPtE-215B54IGWMCI2O21 dated. O311012021 issued by the 2nd Respondent by which the building Permission No. 22259lGWMClO304l2O21 dated. 08/03/2021 has been revoked under Section 176(9) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and also directed the petitioner to stop the construction, despite the vendor purchased the plot through registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 1 505/1 992 dated. 1OlO4/1952 and the permission was accorded to the petitioner through the TS-B PASS lnstant Approval vide building Permit Order No. 22259/GWMC1030412021 dated 0810312021 and has been verified physically through Post Verification Team on 2210312021 and accordingly the petitioner permitted to commence the construction in open Plot No. 1/A admeasuring 200.00 Sq.yds in Sy.No. 831 situated at Hanamkonda Revenue village is unfair, unjust, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to s'et aside impugned proceedings vide File No. Cir- llffPlE-2158541 GWMCl2}2'l dated. 0311012021 issued by the 2nd Respondent and direct the respondents not to interfere in the ongoing construction in plot no. 1/A admeasuring 20(1.00 Sq. yds in Sy. No. 831 situated at Hanamkonda Revenue village as the property is private Iand and petitioner is the rightful owner of it and since the plot was existing even before 'l gg2 and never been identified as a 30 feet road and he got all the permissions in accordance with law and Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. 1A 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 set aside the impugned revocation proceedings issued by thqr2nd Respondent and direct the respondents not to interfere in the ongoing construction as the petitioner is prepared and assuring to forego his equity in the completed building in plot no. 1/A admeasuring 200.00 Sq.yds in Sy.No. 83.t situated at Hanamkonda Revenue village. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDy, SC FOR KUDA Counsel for the-Respondent No.S: SRI M.AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.17281 arrd 29O83 of2O23 &29213 of2O2L COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17281 of 2023 and 29213 of 2021, Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Kar-rumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.29083 of 2023, Sn Pasham Vt6iritfi learned Standing Counsel appearing for Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) f.ra St p. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA). Perused the record.

2. Petitioner in W.P.No.l7281 of 2023 had frled the said writ petition to declare the action of respondent authorities in threatening to dispossess him from plot No.1/A admeasuring 2OO Sq.yds in Sy.No.83 1, situated at Hanumakonda within respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation without following due procedure laid down W.ll.No. I 728 I of 2023 & batch 2 under law a.s illegal. He has also sought consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess him or interfere with his possession over the subject property in arry manner. He has also filed another writ petition, vide W.P.No.292 13 of 2O2l to declare the impugned proceedings, dated O3.LO.2O2L issued by respondent No.2, revoking the building permit order, dated O8.O3.2027 of the petitioner as illegal.

3. Petitioners in W.P.No.29O83 of 2023 are neighbours e of the petitioners in other two writ petitions. They have filed this Writ Petition to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in preventing encroachment of public road a.s shown in Annexure-I annexed to the said layout at Kapu Vada Bhadrakalo layout forming part of Sy.No.S3 1 of Hanumakonda Revenue Village as illegal.

4. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.17281 of 2023 and 29213 of 2O2I is clairning that he is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot No. 1/A, admeasuring 129O.00 KL,J W.P.No.17281 of 2023 &batch 3 Sq.yds., in Sy.No.831, situated at respondent No.2- Municipality on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.15140 of 2019, dated 22-06.2019. He has purchased the subject property from Sri Rai Damodar S/o. Kistaiah represented by his GPA holder Sri Goparaju Krishna S/o. Late Sammaiah. In proof of the same, he has filed copies of the said sale deed and link document bearing document No.1505 of 1992, ddted to.o4.t992. It is the specific case of the petition., {n", "o*. 5. properby was acquired by the Municipality for road widening and he has sold some extent of lald, out of 290 Sq.yds. Left over land is 2O0 Sq.yds. He has obtained building permit order, dated 08.03.2021lunder TS-bPASS by uploading all the relevant documents by way of self certification and self declaration for construction of a residential house consisting of Stilt for Parking + 3 Upper Floors. He has also obtained letter of approval for commencement of work uide instant approval, dated W.l'].No.l72t! I of 2023 & batch 4

22.03.2021. According to the petitioner, he has; raised pillars up to 6 feet height. GWMC officials are interfering with his construction without following due procedure laid down under law. He has Iiled a writ petition vide W.P.No.2O845 of 2021. This Court vide order, dated OL.O9.2O27 directed the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissionr:r, GWMC to consider the explanation, dated

30.O8.2021 submitted by the petitioner ancl . pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitidrer herein. Till such exercise is completed, the Commission.er and the Deputy Commissioner, GWMC were directed not to proceed further pursuant to the show causr: notice, dated

23.08.2021. With the directions, the said writ petition was disposed of.

6. Thereafter, on consideration of the explanation, dated 3O.08.2102 I submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 23.08.2021, respondent No.2 has KL,J W.P.No.l7281 of 2023 & batch 5 passed revocation order, dated 03.IO.2O21 reyoking the aforesaid building permit order obtained by the petitioner stating that the petitioner has obtained the said building permit order by way of misrepresentation of facts and fraudulent methods. According to respondent No.2, plot acquired by the petitioner is covered by 30 feet road earmarked in approved ADP No.5 of 2016. Challenging the said revocation order, dated O3.LO.2O2L, petifibner Iiled the writ petition vide W.P.No.29213 of 2021.

7. Vide order, dated 05.07.2023 this Court granted I interim order in W.P.No.I728l of 2023

8. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned revocation order, dated 30.IO.2O21 of respondent No.2 is not on consideration of explanation of 3O.O8.2O24. In fact, there is no ADP No.5 of 2016. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not issued notice and notification in terms of Section 8 (21 and 10 of the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) W.P.No.17281 of 2023 & batc 6 Act, 1975 (Ibr short the Act, 1975). In fact, there is no ADP No.5 ol'2016. Without considering the said aspects, respondent No.2 has revoked the building permission of the petitioner herein vide proceedings, dated O3.lO.2O2l.

9. Whereas, Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.129083 of 2023 and Sri Pzrsham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GWMC and Sri P. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learr:Led Standing Counsel.appearing for KIJDA, on a instructions, would submit that the subject property is a road. ADP No.5 of 2016 was issued strictly in l.erms of the Act, 1975. There is no error in it. There is no challenge of ADP No.5 of 2O16. There are disputes with regard to iclentification of the propert5r. The same are serious in nature. Therefore, petitioner has to approach competent C:ivil Court by way of filing a suit. 1(). Further, Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC, on instructions, would KL,J W.P.No. I 7281 of 2O23 & batch 7 submit that the impugned revocation order, dated O3.IO.2O2| passed by respondent No.2 is in compliance with the order, dated 01.09.2021 in W.p.No.20845 of 2021. It is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (l) of the Telalgana Municipalities Act, 2O19. Therefore, instead of preferring a_n appeal, petitioner filed W.P.No.29213 of 2O2t

11. As discussed supra, petitioner is claiming right over the aforesaid property on the strength of a regiTtered sale deed bearing document No.1514O of 2OIg, dated 22.06.2019- In Schedule of property boundaries mentioned therein are shown as: East_4O feet wide road, West-Land of others, North-plot No. 1 and South-Land of Ms.K. Lavanya. Route map is a_lso mentioned in the plan annexed to it. In the link document i.e., sale deed bearing document No.1505 of lgg2, d.ated tO.O4.Lgg2, the boundaries are shown as; East-40 feet wide road, West_ I"and of others, North-plot No.l of Sri R. Vijaya and W.l'.No. 1728 1 of 2023 & batc 8 South-Land of Vendor. Thus, there are disputes with regard to ttre troundaries of the subject property and identification of the subject property. In link document i.e., sale deed bearing document No.15O5 of l99il,, daled

10.04.1992, io the Schedule, it is mentioned as piece of Agriculture l-and in Sy.No.831 of Hanamakonda Village. In the Schedule of the sale deed bearing document No.15140 of 2019, dated 22.06.2019, it is mentioned as open plot No.1/A, admeasuring 29O Sq.yds. There is no layout. Petitioner has not hled copy of the sdd layout to show that he has purchased the open plot No. 1/A L2. According to the petitioner, KUDA has not issued any Area Development Plan (ADP No.5 of 2016l In the light of the salne, this Court directed Sri P Chandrashekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for KUDA, to file copy of the same. He has filed copy of the said document. There is no challenge to the sarne. Therefore, petitioner herein cannot contend that no KL,J W.P.No.l7281 of 2023 &barch 9 notice was issued while issuing the said ADp No.5 of 2O16. The notification in terms of Section g (2) was not issued.

13. In the explanation, dated 3O.OB.2O2|, the petitioner has not raised the said grounds. Therefore, now he cannot raise the said ground for the first time in the present writ petition. L4. The aforestated facts would revea_l that there are serious disputes with regard to the title of thf petitioner over the subject property and identihcation of the same. Admittedly, the impugned revocation order, dated O3.LO.2O2| of respondent No.2 is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (l) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2079 (for short 'the Act, 2Ol9).It is not the case of the petitioner herein that the said order was lrassed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 2Ol9 W.l'.No. l72t I of 2021 & batc 10 to maintain the present writ petition despite ava.ilability of alternativcr remedy of appeal.

15. As discussed supra, there are serious disput.es with regard to the title of the aforesaid property, more particularly identification of the property. They are complicated questions of fact. There is no dispute that this Court can consider the factual aspects which are not serious/complicated in nature in a writ petition filed I under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a writ petition is maintainable in contractual matters as held by the Honble Supreme Court in ABL International Limited v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limitedt. But, this Court cannot consider serious/complicated questions of facts as held byi the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ehsanz. As discussed supra, in the present case, there are serious/complicated questions of facts which this ' lzoo+; : scc ss3 2 2023 Live Law (SC) 887 KL,J W.P.No. 1 7281 of 2023 & batch Court cannot consider in a writ petition liled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, petitioners have to approach competent Civil Court or prefer an appeal challenging the order, dated O3.7O.2O2L revoking the building permit order obtained by the petitioner.

16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these threel I writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner in W.P.Nos.17281 of 2023 and 292]3 of 2O2l to prefer an appeal challenging the order, dated O3.LO.2O2L in terms of Section 252(I) of the Act, 2079 before the Regional Director/Appellate Authority concerned within ten (10) days from today, tailing which, liberty is granted to the GWMC to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Libert5r is also granted to the petitioner to approach competent civil Court in filing suit seeking declaration of title. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners in both writ petitions and W.P.No.172til of 2023 & t2 GWMC and KUDA to tate all pleas and grounds which they have taken in the present writ petition before the Appellate Authority or before the competent civil Court. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, $*.,;u; FFlCER 1. The Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. The eommissioner,. Greater lVargryal Municipal C#poration (GWMC), Warangal District, Telangana - 506002. g. Jhg Deputy_Commissioner, Kazipet - Circle-ll, GWMC Warangal District, Telangana - 506002. 4. The Vice-Chairman, Kak_aliya Urban Development Authority (KUDA), 5. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI 6. One CC to SRI M AJAY KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCI 7. One CC to Mis. KANUMURT KALYANt, Advricate tOpUCl B. One CC to SRt PASHAM MOH|TH, SC FOR GWMC topucl 9. One CC to SRt p CIt-TPFASUEKAR REDDY, SC FbR KUbA topUCI 10.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court fdr the State of Hanamkonda, Telangana 506001 . - Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTJ

11.Two CD Copies BSRYBN % HIGH COURT DATED:0 410312025 I CC TODAY .;R 1HE S?h /(- ('^ l ) 10 fiAe 2025 "t.\=ir. \_r:. .,'TCH EO ( ( o J COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17281 and 29083 ot 2023 & 29213 of 2021 e DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \0