High Court · 2025

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the technical layout permission approved through proceeding ROC No.277|2O20MRO/W according to TLP NI.O2|2O21MRO|W in Sy.No 473,is an extent of Ac.1- 25, in Sy.No 474 is an extent of 3- 23 guntas and in Sy.No 455 is an extent of 1- 31 guntas thus total admeasuring Ac. 6- 37 guntas situated at kalluru villege, koratla mandal, jagityal district, and consequently direct the respondent No 2 to consider the representation dated 12-02-2022 of the petitioner to conduct an enquiry. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 12-02-2022 submitted by the petitioner while pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDARAM MANOJ GOUD Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 13: SRI K.VENU MADHAV The Court made the following: ORDER /' /'.': HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3O062 of 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing technical layout permission through proceeding ROC No.277 l2O2O IWROi W according to TLP No.O2l2O2l IWRO/W for the land to an extent of Ac.1.25 gts., in Sy.No.473, Ac.3.23 gts., in Sy.No.474, Ac.1.31 gts., in Sy.No.455, total admeasuring Ac.6.37 gts., situated at kalluru Village, Koratla Mandal, Jagityal District, as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the rccord

3. It is stated that the petilioner is the secretary of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society and the same is registered uide Reg No.149/TD bcfore the Rcgistrar of Societies. It is also stated that the membcrs of the socicty have purchased lands admeasuring Ac.1.25 gts., in Sy.No.473, Ac.3.23 gts., in Sy.No.474, Ac. 1.31 gts., in Sy.No.455, total admeasuring Ac.6.37 gts., situated at kalluru Village, Koratla Mandal, Jagityal District, through sada bainama and pattadar passbook 2 CVBR- J \\'p 30062 2022 ;' was also issued uide passbook No.277883, Patt;e No.569 in favour of the society and the recorded in the revenue records. It name of the sor:iety is also is furthe r stated that respondent No.6 has sold the land in Sy.Nos.473 and 474 of thc society in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 12 through registered sale deed, without the knowledge of the members o1 the society and after coming to know the said fact, the m.r,bers of the societ5r have instituted a suit ujde O.S.No.S9 of 2Ct lg on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koratla, Jagitial scckins canccllation of sale deed executed b1, respondent No.6 ir-l favour of respondent Nos.7 to 72 and the said suit is pending It is further stated that pending consideration. respondent Nos.7 to 12, represented bv the (l PA Holder- respondent No.13, made an application before respondent No.4 for issuance ol technical layout permission and resJrondcnt No.4 has approved the r ide ROC No.277 /2O2O /WRO/W. It is further stated that thc members of the society made a representation d.aLed 12.02.202:2, enclosing all necessary documents to respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action to cancel thc. sale deed executed by respondent No.6 in favour of responclcnt Nos.7 tcr 12, however, no action has been taken till date. technical layout Lhe said suit, I i : I l CVBR, J Wp 30062_2022

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there are existing thadi and sendi trees over the lands in Sy.Nos.473 and 455 and the said trees are being allotted as ration for the the members of the societ5r and they are drawing thadi from the said trees. Learned counsel further contended that in view of granting tentative layout in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 12, if the sendri and tadi trees are removed from the subject lands, there is no required ralion for drawing of the toddy, therefore, the entire society members would suffer from eking out their livelihood.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 12 has contended that respondent Nos.7 to 12 have purchased the subject lands under registered sale deed and they are in enjoyment and possession of the lands. In fact, the members of society earlier hled a suit on the filc of the civil court and the said suit has been withdrawn themselves. Learned counsel further contended thal: the petitioner-socie ty is not having any valid title to claim interest over the subject property and as such, they are not having any right to object the approval of the final layout in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 12. ) 4 CVBR. J '*tp 30062_2022

6. A careful examination of the record would reveal that except saying that the name of the petitioner-society has been registered in 1-B register, no documents as such, eithcr registered sale deed or validation of sadabainama have been produced before this Court. The petitioner-societ5r atso failed to produce the pattadar passbook issued in respect ol the subject property alleged to have been purchased by them. On contrary, respondent Nos.7 to 72 have placed the registered sale deed and also the proceedings of the permission granted by rcspondent No.4 for tentative layout. The case of the petitioner-society is that even if they are not owners of the subject property, they arc entitled for tapping of sendi and tadi trees, which are existing even in the patta lands under the provisions of the Telangana Land Acquisition Act, 1317 Fas1i.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that for allotment of ration/ sendi trees, the peti tioner-society is always having right Lo make an appropriate application before the Registrar, Excise Superintendent, but they are not entitled to question granting of layout in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 12, on the ground that their rights would be affected. 5 CVBR, J Wp-30062 2022 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner-society is having any documents in support of its claim, it is at liberty to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI GUNDARAIVI MANOJ GOUD, Ad 2. One CC to SRI K.VENU IMADHAV, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at te [OPUC] Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies BSFYBSK rHE srert k 2 7 Juil 2U5 q J o O .)z .\.*. ({1 ( \--. i/F. -r ^ -\-- .=...__ --- ,.-^rji ^*.-/ ' ,il HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 ORDER WP.No.30062 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 'l 6 l6