High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS lrre constitution,.of rndia prayins that in the .,|..rrL3tltl3l :1:;:1X'.1: ,,d; il&:,:,*;i"il::i1,:,il, :,;i$:,[[fir, 1n" u,silc;u; ;;, .0" to,zqzJdeEdilffi ffi ,.;1i:,;,[f**"r"-",1=;il]i:i{x"i,*:it arbitrary' i'egar, discriminatory vioration "i o?.,rH."gf Naturar justice, Articres 14 ilr1,i l,.3t,lf ;T:XH:",l :i r "o':^' "i "5,'iftIi,,, di rect th e respondents to t "" r.rH:il"'i]"i",. " "r p"tit.*,ir,i";;: ff:,,j:1"%.,.j#,r"Tj;,1"?1,)?;J rd IA NO: 10F 2022 Petition under Section.151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, in"'n,gi'iorrt may be preased to qrant interim directions directing tr,"^ r..fonl";"' i; c"onsider the request oi the petitioner for resutarization.gr a^o! .q:y;;; ;; rrio'r,<rr.rtpa,y as was done to similarly situated persons vide GorvS No. 1;s ;;;s Board Department, dated 03-09-2007 and orders in wA.No. zrs -' '" ' "i-2.ii"and arotment made to sri Gheesalal pending disposal of the writ peiiti"" i l I J I I I I i 1 i i t IA NO: 10F 2024 nces stated in sed to direct that in igh Co the circumsta urt may be Plea etition under Section 151 CPC PraYing the H of the Petition' ed in suPPo ts to consid he request of the Petition er for regulariza tion of 300 land at Kukatp altY as was d one to similarlY situated Persons vide 178 Housing Boa rd DePartm ent, dated 03-09-2007 and orders ln ot2013 and allotm ent made to Sri Ghee salal Pending disP osal of the : SRt Y. SANDEEP SAI REPRESENTTNG P the affidavit fit he resPonden t sq.Yards of GOMS No' WA.No.219 writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner M R VELU Gounsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondent NO'2: SRI C' BUCHI REDDY SC FOR TSHB The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER FOR SRI' C R.'',', -. , ./ .. 1 I ?;Y-.Y HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.26203 OF 2022 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Sandeep Sai learned counsel representing Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri C.Buchi Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. According to the petitioner, his father Late Ramaiah was the tenant of lease hold land to the extent ol 3OO Sq yds in premises bearing No.2O/llE, admeasuring 3OO Sq.yds situated at M.J Road, Hyderabad and the same was granted to him by the Government in the yeas 1947 . Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, eviction order was passed on

23.O7.1977. Aggrieved by the said eviction order, petitioner's father preferred an appeal vide CMA No.8 of 1983 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner's father filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.2699 of 1983, vide order dated O9.O9.1986 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent to allot alternative land in 2 ]*: Kukatpally. This Court directed a-lso directed the petitioner to vacate the premises and handover to the possession within seven days. Questioning the said order, the petitioner,s father preferred arr appeal vide W.A No.1258 of 1986 before this Court and tl-re Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated

17.10.1986, disposed of the said appeal by granting 3O days time to the father of the petitioner to vacate the said property and handovcr the same to the Housing Board. According to the petitiont:r, his father vacated the said property and handed over the same to the respondent Board on

11.O2.1987 . Later, the petitioner's father died.

3. Petitior-rer herein had filed W.P.No16220 of 2O2I to declare the inaction of respondents in not issuing the order for conversion of the lease hold land admeasuring to an extent of 300 Sq.yds in Sy.No. lT8 of Kukatpally on NH (9) to free hold as agreed by the AP Housing board in the past on par with the similarly situated persons as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of Inclia. Vide order dated 16.07.2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petition granl.ing liberty to the petitioner herein to submit a representation to respondent No.2 with necessary i J ,.$,$;-:,rV 3 documentar5r evidence and on receipt of the said representation, respondent No.2 was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 03.08.2021 to the respondent and the same was rejected vide order dated O7.04.2022 on the ground that petitioner's father failed to vacate the property at M.J. Road and hand over the same to the Housing Board to enable the respondent to give alternative land at Kukatpally on lease basis and the petitioner's father constructed a temple. Cha-tlenging the said proceedings dated O7.O4.2O22, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition.

4. As discussed supra, the petitioner agreed to vacate and handover the Iand at M.J. Road for the purpose of respondent to allot alternative land at Kukatpally Housing Board on lease basis. Vide order dated 16.07.2O2 1, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide W.P No.16220 of 2021 granting liberty to the petitioner to Submit a representation to respondent No.2. The petitioner has submitted the representation on 4 O3.O8.2O21 and the respondent No.2 has rejected the said request vide impugned order dated 07.O4.2021.

5. Sri Y.Sandeep Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Siva temple was existing at M.J.Road and and neither father of the petitioner nor petitioner constructed the Lcrd Shiva Ternple. But the said plea vvas not taken by the petitioner's father and petitioner in the earlier round of litigation i.e, in the CMA No.8 of 1983, WP No.2699 of 1983 and W.A No.1258 of 1986. The said plea was not takcn by the petitioner in W.P.No. 16220 of 2O2l and also in the representation dated 03.08.202 1. Therefore the petitioner cannot contend that the Shiva temple is existing in the land of M.J.Road. In the aforesaid WP No.2699 of 1983 and W.A No.1258 of 1986, this Court directed the petitioner's father and petitioner to vacate the property situated at M.J.Road, Hl,rlerabad and handover the same to the Housing Board. Instead of Coing so, they have constructed Shiva Temple. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for alternative 1and.

6. Sri C.Bur:hi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contending that the father of the w 5 petitioner constructed the Siva temple in 340 Sq.yds of land let out to him at M.J.Road. Therefore, he is not entitled for alternative land as he has violated the order dated 09.09.1986 in W.P.No.2699 of 1983 and order dated 17.10.1986 in W.A No.1258 of 1986. On consideration of the said facts, respondent No.2 has rejected the request made by the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2021. There is no error in it. 7 . In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought for in the present writ petition.

8. Therefore, this wdt petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA RE DEPUTY REGIST DDY RAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 KKS GJP One CC to SRl. C M R VELU Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI C. BUCHI REDDY SC FOR TSHB [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD CoPies o ( HIGH COURT DATED:2310412025 ( THE S le .J o ! {n'( !z P 11 JUt 2m * .i- ,A ;:.r * I:O ORDER WP.No.26203 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6l{ I I i l I I