pyiniya.s v. 6. Samboju 9ugunamma

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.3 and 4 in issuing Urgent Memo vide. RC.No.Ci832l2O23dated.26-09-2023 and Letter vide RC No. B/1363/ 2023,dated.1B-o8-2o23 respectively by directing the respondent No.5 to demolish the petitioners newly constructed building bearing No.4-S-p1162 , admsg., 453.33 Sq., yards in Sy.,No.135 consisting with Ground plus 2 Floors, situated at VenkannaKunta, Jangaon Town and District, T.S, on the ground of illegal construction carried in the respondents No.6 and 7 s assigned patta land in Sy., No. 1 36/7, is without issuing any show cause notice or otherwise to the issued by petitioner and withoul. (;onducting survey and verification of building construction permit vide No. 335612/ JANGiO549/2023 daled'14-10'2023 respondent No.5, as highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Telangana Land Revenue Act and without jurisdiction and authority and amounts to violation of articles 6f constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 to lj and their subordinates not to demolish/damage the petitioners newty constructed building bearing H. .No.4-5-P1162, admsg.' 453.33 Sq.,yardsinSy.,Nc'.'l35,consistingwithGroundplus2floors,situatedat VenkannaKunta, JangaonTown and District, T.S,in any manner forthwith' provisions lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under s,:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the Urgent Mr-.mo vide RC.No. ClB32l2O23dated.26-09-2023 and Letter vide RC No. B/1363i - 2O23daled.18-O\-2023 issued by the respondents No.3 and 4 respectively forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MPCL Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 & 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER n HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BIIASNAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.I 7867 of2024 ORDER: This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to.issue an appropiate utit, ord.er or directions more parttcularly one in the .nafire of utit of lIanlamus, d.eclaing itte'actton of the r_espond.ents more particalarlg th.e respond.ent xZ.3 and 4 in isuing Urgent Memo uide.RC.No.C/ 832/ 2O%: dated". ZA Og_iOzS and. Letter uide RC No.B/1363/2023, dated 1B_OB_2023 ,"rp..tiiiig by directing the respondent No.S to demolish the petitioneris n;aig anstructea building bearing No.4-S-p1162 admsg., +SS.SS Sqt.,- gards in Sg., No.135 consisting with Ground + 2 Floors, situated at Veiiinna Kunta" Jangaon Toun & District, T.S, on the ground of iltegal """.;;;i;;' ."rried in the respondents No.6 & 7's assigned patta lari in Sg., No. 136/ 7, is uithaut isslting ana sho,-t cause notice oi otheruise to tie'paitailr and. taithout c-gnducting suruey and ueifcatbn of buitding "oiiti"tiin pennit uide No.335612/JANG/os4s/2d% dat;d" u1"o2o2i iiiuea fu the respondent No.S, as highlg illegal, arbitrary, cotltrary to the proui.sions of Telangana Land Reuenue Act and tuittaut-jurisdiaiin and authoritg and am.ounts to uiolation of articles of constitutbn of India and pincif,les of natural justice qnd. set aside tlrc same and'cons.qu.iUg direct the resporuTents more pantianlarlg respond.ent No.2 S and their sub_ordinates not to demolish,/ d.amag6 the petittoner,s ieu.,ig constntcted. blildyng bearing H. No.4-S-pt 1_62, admsg., 453.33 Sq., gards in Sg., {o.i35 consisfr ng utth Ground + 2 [toori'situated. oi-i"it arnoXrnto, Jangoon Toun & District, T.S, tn any-manner fonfuuif i..; -to - 2" Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of open plot admeasuring 453.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.135 situated at Venkanna Kunta, Jangaon Town and District, having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1089/2010 dated rg.o2.2oro. It is further *&*.-.. 2 case of the petit.ioner that when the respondent Nos'6 and 7 and others interferecl with his possession, he instituted a suit vide O.S.No.S of 2O 1 8 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction and in the said suit, interim injunction was granted vide order dated 03.01.2018' It is a-lso case of the petitioner r:hat he obtained building permission uide No.24812 I J ANG I 0624 I 2022 dated lO.Ol.2023 from the respondent No.5 for constru.ction of Ground + lst floor and commenced construction work. It is stated that the petitioner with an intention to construct Ground + 2 floors, obtained another building perm'ission vide No.335612/JANGl0549/2023 dated 14.10.2023 from the respondent No.5. It is the case of the petitioner that whib he was proceeding with the construction strictly in terms of the sanctioned plan, the respr:ndent No.5 issued a show cause notice vide No.MCJ/G1/ 12l2023 dated 16.10.2023 dleging that respondent Nos.6 and 7 subrnitted a representation stating thirt petitioner and one Budida Llppalaiah are making illegal construction by encroaching the land in Sy.No.136. It is further casr: of the petitioner that ht: submitted explanation d,ated 2L.10.2023 to the said show cause notice but the Respondent No.S' issued alother show cause notice dated 25.1O.2023 alleging misrepresentation in obtaining the buil,1ing permission ald directed to submit explaration within seven days.. it is the case of the petitioner that he submitted C 3 his explanation on 02.11.2023 and even though the property was assessed for house tax, the Respondent No.S revoked the second building permit dated 14.1O.2023 through notice dated 03.11.2023 and the same was served only on 18.03.2024. It is stated that on 1a.O3.2O24, the respondent No.S revoked the first building permit dated 2L.12.2O22. It is the case of petitioner that issuance of revocation orders basing on the proceedings of Respondent No.3 and 4, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. It is further case of the petitioner that he frled Writ petition Nos.g766 and 8788 of 2024 on rhe hle of this Court, wherein Wp No.d766 of 2024 was allowed ot O4.O4.2O24 and the Wp No.g7g8 of 2024 was withdrawn on O8.O4.2O24 with a liberty to seek remedies available under law. It is stated that challenging the revocation order, the petitioner hled an appeal under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 on the file of Regional Director-cum_ Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed on 22.06.2024 on the observations that "on tle basis of complaint from respondent Nos.6 & Z and also @pg of letter Rc.No.B/ 1363/2023, dated 18-08-2023 add"ressed. bg the respondent No.4 and Memo No.C/832/2023 dated 26-09-2023 ofthe respondent No.3, the municipal autlwities haue understood that tle subject land where construction is being taken bg th_e petitioner and. anotLer in Sg.No.136/7 is Laoni patta and bosing on that the t--2 4 Municipalauthoritieshaueissuedorderofreuocationofproceedings doted- 03-11-2023 and. tle same Lnlds good'' It is the case of the petitioner that agyieved by the said order, he is intending to prefer revisionbeforetheGovemment.Whilethematterstoodtlrus,itis stated that Resp,ondent No.3, without jurisdiction and without providing an oppcirtunity to the petitioner, issued impugned Urgent Memo uide Rc.No C/832/ 2023 on 26'O9'2023 directing to demolish the petitioner's building within 24 hours' Hence the writ petition'

4. The leatned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the lands are ceased to be agricultural lands, the respondent No'3- Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, is not having any power or authority to issue the impugned memo dated 26 'O9t '2023 and direct for demolition of the constructions raised by the petitioner' It is further submittec. that even if the lands claimed by the respondent Nos'6andTareassignedlands,theauthoritieshavetofollowthe procedure as corLtemplated under the provisions of the 'I'elangana Assig-ned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and l}re aggrieved partl' has to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Civil C:ourt but the respondent No'3 cannot take recourse to law. The leamed counsel further submitted that rvhen the respondent Nos.,5 and 7 interfered with the possession of the petitioner in respect of subject lands, the petitioner instituted a civil f-r 5 suit vide O.S.No.S of 2Ol8 on the hle of principal Junior Civil Judge, at Jangaon and the same is pending for adjudication. It is a-lso submitted that when the matter is seized before the Civil Court, the respondent No.3 has no authority to issue impugned memo dated

26.09.2023 and ultimately prayed to set aside the same.

5. A perusal of the impugrred urgent memo dated 26.09.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 reveals that it was issued on the premise that the petitioner and one Bhudida Uppalaiah were making illegal constructions in the land in Sy.No.136/7, situated at Jangaon Town and Village, rvithout obtaining permission from the respondent No.S. It further reads that as the ofhce of respondent No.5 had not taken any action, the respondent No.3 directed the demolition of the alleged illegal construction within 24 hours and directed to submit a report to the respondent No.2-Collector. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned memo was issued without alfording him an opportunity of being heard and without conducting any survey to ascertain whether the construction was indeed made in Sy.No. 136/7, as alleged, or in the petitioner's own land in Sy.No. 135. The petitioner contends that he made construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building permits issued by the respondent No.S a:nd that the revocation of the said permits was I Itt,. 6 based on erroneous assumptions and without following the principles of natur:al justice

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Chlnnann Pandurangann us' Mandal Reaenue OfJicer, Serillngamltallg Mandal & otherd emphasized the importance of compliance with ihe principles of ndtural justice in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, holding .taken without affording the affected party an that any action opportunity of being heard would be vitiated. 'I he instant case squarely falls wj.thin the principles laid down in the said j'rdgment' The impugned Memo, having been passed without issuing prior notice to the petitioner or granting an opportunil.y to preseht his case, is therefore unsustainable in law. Furthermore, the petitioner has instituted a. :ivil suit vide O.S.No.S of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Oivil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual irjunction, wherein an interim injunction was granted in his favor on O3.O 1 .2O 18. When the matter rs sub judice before the compe tent Civil Court, the respo:rdent No.3 ought not have issued the impugned Urgent Memo, directing demolition of the constructions made by the petitioner. 7 . In view of t.he foregoing reasons, the impugned Urge'nt Memo vide Rc.No.832/2023 dated 26.O9.2023, issued b'r the respondent ' aln 2oo8 *B-'t' {, 7 No.3, is set aside. Since there is a serious dispute rega:.ding the identifrcation and localization of the subject property i.e, whether the petitioner made construction within his land in Sy.No.13S or in Sy.No. 136/7, as alleged, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent_authorities to conduct a detailed survey of the subject property a-fter issuing notices to the parties to this writ petition as well as to any other interestcd persons claiming rights over the land, in accordance with law. If the survey reveals that the petitioner has undertaken construction within the boundaries of his own land in Sy.No. 135, the respondents shall not interfere with the same. Conversely, 1f it is found that the petitioner has made constructions in the land belonging to respondents Nos.6 and. T, the respondent-authorities are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 8 Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSTSTANT REGIgfRAR @/ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, TS Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T S' State of Telangana

2. The District Collector, Jangaon District, office at Jangaon, TS 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon Division and District, office at Jangaon, TS.

4. TheJahsildar, Jangaon Mandal and District, olfice at Jangaon, TS 5. The Commissioner, Jangaon Municipality, Jangaon Town and District, T.S 6. One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies PSK ....._,;.rr.l{!*ja..r,.&&'$r &&&F.*- !at?r:e.'*r.ea:.r: .. .-t ea&.tt&:-..,'.s- '-. .-. HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER WP.No.17867 of 2024 \ \ 1-1 ,l-. l.ns il ,)* s-f.q i.a 21 rtB. ?$6 lit, ,) 't. <$( t 1: / DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \rt