High Court · 2025

Petition r nrler s;ection 151 CPC praying that in thr; cir:umstances stated in the affidavit liled i 1 support of the petition, the High court may t e pleased to direct the resF,ondenls No.3 not to dispossess the petition:rrs from their respective petty busil()ss shop bearing No's' 15, 5, 24, 2'" ' 51 , 26 l4' 12' 18' 6' .10, 33 in sy.No. .1 arrc 2 situated at Kodada Town and ltrlandarl, D s.rict suryapet without followin 3 rlue (rrocess of law, pending disposal of the a bov:> writ petition. Counsel for the' Petii:ioners: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJAT-A Counsel for the Res condent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URUAN DEV Counsel for the R.escondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES I WRIT PETITION NO: 16768 OF 2025 Between:

1. Gunda Rama Rao, S/o: Gunda Ramalingam, Aged about 6g years, Occ. Business shop No. 38, R/o H.No.2-64, Nlar Sai krishna ftreaire, foOaA (T), Suryapet Distribt.

2. Kashina Pandu Ranga Rqo, Q/9: Kashina Bataiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business shop No. 35, Rl/o H.No.2-173lA, N6ar"Sai krenna fneitre behind, Kodad (T), Suryapet District.

3. Shaik- Jani P1s!'ra., Slo:_Sfraik .Subhani, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business shop No. 11, Rl/o H.No.5-17, Matha nagarlKodad (T), Suryapet District. 4. Mohammod Mohammod Ali, S/o: Mohammod Amjadh Ali, Aged about 5,1 Years, Occ. Business shop No. 55, Rl/o H.No.2-i20, Sai'Krishna Theatre backside, Kodad (T), Suryapet District.

5. Shaik Saleem, S/o: Late Shai Occ. Business shop No. 31, F/o (T), Suryapet District. k Dade Saheb, Aged about 47 Years, H.No.3-139, Tammara Bandapalem, Kodad

6. Dheekonda Narahari, S/o: Dheekonda Lachaiah, Aged about g0 years, Occ. Business shoo No. 58, Rt/o H.No.3-252lA,.Naia Nagar, XodaO (i), Suryapet District.

7. Somapalgg-u Chinna Saidulu, S/o: Somapangau Naga Bhushanam, Aged bari'Ofri about 43 Years, Occ. Business shop Nd.36, R/o -tf.No.o-t+olz, nagar, Kodad (T), Suryapet District.

8. Shaik Rouf, S/o: Shaik Khadar Pasha, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business shop No.30, Rl/o H.No.17-190/6, Balaji nagar, Kodad (T), Suryapet District. 9. Shaik_ Harsha .Bee, Wo: Shaik Samdhani, Aged about 38 years, tto. 30/A, R/o H.No.l-143, See-tharam puram, Chilukui Occ..Business. -s!.op_ Mandal, Kodad (T), Suryapet District.

10.Banala Pichamma, W/o: Late Banala Govinda Chary, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business.shop No. 32, No H.No.1'1-651, A2adnagar, Kodad (T), Suryapet District. 1 1 . Shaik Hussain, S/o: John. Sahe!, Aged abgut 42 years, Occ. Business shop \o. 34, R/o 139, SC colony, Tammara Bandapalem, Kodad (T), Suryapeit District.

12.Karla Ramulu, Sio: Karla-Ramulu, Aged about 84 years, Occ. Business shop No. 9, Rl/o D.No.6-46/3/18, Gandhi nagar, Kodad (T), Suryapet District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 lle p!a!e of Telangana, Rgp. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat BultOing, Di. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Suryapet, Suryapet District. The Kodada Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Kodada, Suryapet District. ...RESPONDENTS /' L{ Petition u 1ls1 Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia f'rayir(l that in the circumstances sta:e,l n the affidavit filed therewith, the HirTh oc urt may be pleasedtoissueartalloropriatewrit,orderordirectionmorerparticulatlyoneinthe nature Writ of lrlanclirrrus, declaring the action of the respondenls in trying to dispossess the [)elition3rs from their respective petty business shollt; bearing No s.38,35,11,55.3158,36,30,30/A,32,34,9inSyNo'1an(i2situatedat Kodada Town arrd lr/lrrndal, District suryapet without following due lrrocess of law, which is being illegal, a.bitrary and violate of principles of natural jus':it;e. IA NO: 1 0F 2025 Petition u rder s :ction 1 51 CPC praying that in the circu'nsti:nces stated in the affidavit filed ir sr pport of the petition, the High court may L,e plr;irsed to direct the respondents No. i] not to dispossess the petitioners fro'n their r,rspective petty business shops br:arng Nos.38,35, 11,55,31,58,36,30,30/rrr,32' 34' 9 in sy.No. .1 and 2 situate:d at Kodada Town and tvlandal, District strnrapet without following due pr,lc':ss ,:rf law, pending disposal of the above writ pet tirln' Counsel for the Petilioners: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJATA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Reslrondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Resl:ondent No.3: SRI PUfiA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION N os.l6767 & 16768 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER: (oRAL) l As the issue involved in both the writ petitiohs is same, they are being disposed of by this common order at the admission stage itself.

2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from their respective shops i.e., shop bearing Nos.15, 5,24,27, 51,26, 14, 12, 18, 6, 10, 33, 38, 35, 11, s5, 31, 58, 36, 30, 30/A, 32, 34 and g in Survey Nos.1 and 2 situated at Kodada Town and Mandal, Suryapet District, without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3' lt is submitted that the petitioners are eking out their liverihood by running their shops in the subject premises for the past more than 40 years. They have been paying property tax regularly. The shops are having electricity connection. The total area covering all the shops occupied by the petitioners and other shops in the subject survey numbers is about 300 square yards. The totar extent of rand in the subject survey numbers is Acs.7-.15 guntas. The Chief Executive Officer of Waqf Board addressed a letter dated 14.05.2007 to the District Fanchayat Officer (DpO), Nalgonda stating that the shopping 2 complex ir fiurv:y Nos.1 and 2 lo an extent of Acs T'15 gunts' constructecl kry 3ram Panchayat, Kodad, belongs to Sarai l/eeralam Waqf (Mos;que ) and requested the authorities not tc pr'rceed with illegal con:;tr-roton. The then Gram Panchayat filed V/ P "J'l'8524 2008 agai'rst trr: DPO and the Waqf Board and the slme was dismissed 'or Ce'firult vide order dated 04'09 2023'

4. HearC ll'. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned ';ounsel petitioners anrj N!r, Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Stanc ing 'lounsel for for the Ir/lunicipalitier;. e ppearing for respondent No'3'

5. Lt:a'ned counsel for the petitioners submittel that the petitioners ha'r,: occupied small extents of land and the''r are being disposses:;e'J vrilhout following due process of law Assunrirrg that the petitioners are irL unauthorised possession, respondert Nr:r' 3 ought to have issued nctice to the petitioners. There is a title disprtt-' between theWaqf3c,arrlandtheMunicipalauthoritiesclair'ringowtrerrshipover the subjer;t larrcl, thus in the interests of justice' posselision of the petitioners; be protected until the respondents follow due rrocess of

6. Learn:rl Standing Counsel appearing for n:sptlndent No'3 Municipality plirc;ed written instructions before this Court atrc submitted that respcnclert No.3 has taken a decision to construct Muni,:ipal office building-cunr-cc nmercial complex by dismantlingl tlrt: existing I I i I i I i t ":*wYYry ,' J Municipal Office building in the subject property. The parking place in front of the Municipal Office building was encroached by some people including the petitioners who are running petty business. Respondent No.3 got approved the building plan for construction of Ground+2 floors in an extent of Ac.0-34 gunts, from DTCP, Hyderabad, yrUe letter No.1008/2023lH dated 19.11.2024. A sum of Rs.6.00 Crores has been sanctioned as loan from Telangana Urban Finance and lnfrastructure Development Corporation (TUFIDC) for construction of Municipal Office building-cum-commercial complex by dismantling old building and tenders were also approved, thus, the petitioners were directed to handover the shops which have come up by way of encroachment. lt is further submitted that the Waqf Board Committee has illegally included the land of respondent No.3 in Gazettee No.part-ll No.7A at Serial No.'13908 dated 15.02.1991. The petitioners have illegally obtained electricity connection without any ownership rights and , , without any permission from respondent No.3. I I

7. In the above factual scenario, it is clear that the petitioners do not have any title and they are in possession of the subject property. Even assuming that they are in possession of the property, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject shops have been constructed by way of encroachment. Considering that larger public interest is involved and respondent No.3 is constructing 4 Municipal Office building-cum-commercial complex, for whir:h building plan has bee'r apcroved and loans have been sanctioned, il rvould not be approp -iate tr) pass any orders which would otherv"il;e cause hindrance tc 1he activities of respondent No.3. B. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitied that 'espondent No.3 be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from 'h e subject shops until build ng construction is taken up.

9. ln vierv cf the above and taking into account that the petitioners have been rttnnirrg business in the subject hops for the pat;t several years, these wr t petitions are disposed of directing resporrlent No.3 not to disp,:sser;s the petitioners from the subject shops uttt I building constructio-r is cc-nmenced. No order as to costs. As a seqlel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if arry, pending in these writ rretitions s-tand clssed. //TRUE COPY// I To, SD/- N. SRIHARI U'ft'REGISTRAR pEiP SECTION OFFICER d Urban [)e velopment, \ u

1. The Prin:ipal llocretary, Municipal Administration Dr. B.R. Antbe dkar Bhavan, The State of Telangana' Hyceratrad The Dist'icl Cirllector, Suryapet, Suryapet District' TheConrmissoner,TheKodadaMunicipality,Kodada,Suryapr>tDistrict' One CC to Sri I)raveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC:; to OF) for tvlunicipal Administration Urban Developn'ent, High Court for the State of lelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri F'utta Krishna Reddy, SC for MunicipalitiestOPlJ{)l Two CC to Th? GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OlJ-l] Two CD Cr)pios 2 J 4 5 6 7 o TJ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1 810612025 de iTAl E O t-) I 1 ,r1r\ i\6 * ;.(. * i r!:.- COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1676'7 and 16768 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS ,t$,: ) U ,l ,r lL,