lncorp-orated under the v. Panchayat Raj and

Petition Under Section 'l 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to stay all proceedings initiated under Notice bearing No. 64 (2018/E2, dated 16to4lzo1s, by the 7th Respondent Authority. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.P.SURESH RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 : Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ ANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 & 8: G.p FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI G.NARENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI p.KISHORE RAO The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ur.P.NO. 15535 0F 2018 POINT: In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Notice bearing No.64l2O18 lD2, dated 16'O4'2Ola' issued by the respondent No.7 and to declare the same to be i1legal' arbitrary and without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice'

2. Brief facts leading to the hling of the present wnt petition are that the petitioner is a private company engaged in the business of manufacture of bulk drugs' He claims to have set up the manufacturing industrial units at Bibinagar and Nallabanda Gudem. It is submitted that in the year 1999 ' lh,e petitioner company acquired the sick unit named M/s'Preethi Pharmaceuticals vide Saie Deed No'35/ i999' dated 07 'Ol 1999 from A.P.State Finance Corporation with an area of two Acres andstartedbusinessoperationsafterobtainingallstatutory approvals ald permissions from the concerned authorities' It is submitted that in the year 2o08, the adjacent land owner namely Chilukuri Ravindra Narayan Tagore, through his GPA holder R.Nagabushanam, approached the petitioner company :\, ./ T 2 TlWD,J w.P.No- ,5535 oJ 2ota and inform,:d that his father, Iate Ch.Krishna Rao, owned arr extent of Ar:.2.30 gts., of agricultural property and intended to sell the sarne to the petitioner and the petitioner also expressed interest in pu16h2slng of the same and after inquiries. came to know that the father of Chilukuri Ravindra Narayan .lagore sold some parcels of land in Ac.2.3O gts., in favour of third persons through the GpA hoider R.Nagabushanam. The petitioner therefore purchased the land from the individuat owners and zLlso the balance of2OOO square yards from the GpA holder i. e., yendor Chilukuri Ravindra Narayan Tagore and ,rwner of a total extent of Ac.2.3O gts., :rnd has became the continued his manufacturing activity

3. thus, the petitioner \4rhi1e the matter stood company received a notice dated 16.09.2O 1S from the respondent No.g stating that a compraint was received from one Mr.Podugu Hlrssain and others, complaining that the petitioner company has encroached/occupied public property i.e., land left for internal roads and approach roads in the alleged 1a1,6r1 ir., Ac.2.30 Bts., of land in Survey No.339 and directed the petitioner to submit the relevant documents and thereafter, to vacate the sa:.d land, failing which action would be taken 3 TMD.J W.P.No. 75535 of207A against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter, he has flled the present writ petition challenging the said notice.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged layout was not an approved layout and all the plots which were made in the said land of Ac'2'30 gts'' have been purchased by the petitioner from the individuals who had purchased earlier from the GPA holder and the.balance of 20OO square yards which allegedly is the road area' has also been purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed and thus, the petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the entire area of Ac'2 30 gts'' as there was no approved layout, there cannot be any case of encroachments by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the explanation submitted by the petitioner giving details of the total extent of land in each of the plots and also about the balance of 2O0O square yards' which has been purchased by the petitioner' Therefore' according to him, the impugned notice is liab1e to be quashed' I I I i I I I I I I I { { \ { ! I i i I : I I t 4 TMD..' W.P.No. I s'ss oJ2o;a

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.7 a,d 9 s,bmitted trrat a complaint was receiveci from one P.Hussain and others on OS.12.2O76and an inquiry was caused by the District Revenue Officer ald on the basis of his report on11,' the irnpugned notice has been issued. It is submitted that in the year 7994, one Chilukaluri Krishna Rao converted the land of Ac.2.3O gts., in Survey No.339 into house sites ald sold some of the house site plots to third parties through his GpA holder, but no iayout permission was obtained from the Gram Panchayat

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has purchased rhe entire land i.e., Ac.2.3O gts., through various documents in square yards and there was no land to be treated as part of roads. Further, it is clear that there was no approval sought from any of the authorities to make the layout and therefore, there cannot be any vesting of ro%of land for roads. Therefore, th.rs Court is also of the opinion that since there was no approved Jayout, there cannot be any case of encroachments of the public ;-oads and since the petitioner himself is the owner of entire lanr1. there cannot be any encroachments by the 5 TMD.J W.P.No. 15535 of ZolA petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, sha,ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRU MALA DEV ASSISTANT EGIS SE ON OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Suryapet District, Suryapet. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Suryapet District, Suryapet. 4. The District Town and Country Planning Officer, Suryapet District, Suryapet. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodad Division, Kodad' Suryapet District' 6. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 7. The Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, t\ilandal Praja Parishad, Kodad, SuryaPet District.

8. The Tahsildar, Kodad Mandal, Kodad, Suryapet District. 9. The Nallabanda Gudem Gram Panchayat, Represented by Secretary Gram Panchayat, Nallabanda Gudem Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District 10.Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

11.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

12.One CC to SRI P.KISHORE RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 13.One CC to SRI A.P.SURESH RAM, Advocate TOPUCI 14.One CC to SRI G.NARENDER REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 15.Two CD Copies To SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 C.C. TODAY ORDER WP.No.I5535 of 2018 1P.ESI ArE ( o c' 2 2 jAl*' ?$,6 ,: i') il ,/ ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ l ){