The High Court · 2025

1 . Smt. S. Devamma, Wo. Krishnaiah, Occ Household, Ri/o. H. No. 1-5-93' 2. Smt.'P. Jayamma, W/o. Raju, Occ Coolie, f|io. H. No. 1-5-78, Boopathi Rao ...'ET'TIONERS Colony,Kollapur(VandM),lMahabubnagarDistrict. AND Mahabubnagar District.

1. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,- Nagarkurnool Division. at Nagarkumool, 3. The Tahsildar, Kollapur Mandal, Kollapur. 4. The Commissioner, Nagara Panchayat, Kollapur, Mahaubnagar District- 5. Ivlekala Ramudu, S/o. kistanna, Occ Business, Rl/o. H. No. 1-6-2, Kollapur 6. Nagaraju, S/o. Ramudu, Occ Pvt. Service, R/o. H. No. 1-6-2, Kollapur VandM ...RES'.NDENTS Vandlvl IVlahabubnagar District. Mahabubnagar District' Petition under Article 226 ot lhe 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 declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not preserving the Government land covered by old Lavatories and also old WELL at Peerlachavudi of Kollapur Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and permitting the sth and 6th respondents to occupy the said Government land to make illegal construction thereon. as illegal, unlawful, and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct detailed enquiry into the encroachment of 5th and 6th respondents upon the Government land by creating documents and demolish the illegal construction made by the 5th and 6th respondents and same may be allotted to Mahila Sangam at Kollapur. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 3969 OF 2013 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 issue interim ()rder directing the sth and 6th respondents not to make further construction o\/er the Government land covered by old WELL and old Lavatories at Peerlachavudi of Kollapur Town and [Vlandal, Mahabubnagar District, under the guise of permission said to have been obtained in respect of H. No. 1-6-2 of the sth responCent, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J. KONDA REDDY REP SRI M DAMODAR REDDY Counsel forttre Respondent Nos.5&6: SRI L. SHANTHA RAM Counsel for ttre Respondent No. 1to3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY (sc FoR Mc,TELANGANA) The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO UIRIT of 20 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the follo'uving relieft o... to isstre an order or direction more particularly one irt lhe. ttctture of Writ of Mandantus declaing the crction of the respond.ents 1 to 4 in not preseruing the ()ouernnrcnt lond. covered by otd Lauqtoies and also olct WELI. at Pee.rla chauudi o.f Kollapur Toutn artd tulcutclal, Mahabubnqgar Distict and permitting the 5rlr and 6th respondents to occupA the said Gouenrment lond to make illegal constructiort thereon, as illegal, unlawful, attd contrary to law ancl consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to concluct detailed enquirg into the encroachment of Stt' ancl 6ilt respond.ents upon the Gouentment land by creathtg documents antd demolish the illegal constntction made bg the 5t' qnd 6th respondents ancl same may be allotted to Mahila Sangam at Kollapur ..."

2. Heard Sri J.Konda Reddy, learled counsel representing Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitionei:; on record. Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.4/Municipalities, and Sri L'Shantha Ram, learned counsel, appeared for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have encroached upoll public land, 2 specificallY the area identified AS Peerla Chavidi, situated in waridyal village of Kollapur Manclal, and have und'ertaken illegal construction thereon

4. The re:;pondent No.4 filed a detailed counter affidavit, stating that the larrd in question is situated within Grama Kantam and falls under. the jurisdiction of the commissioner, Nagara Panchayat, Kollapur. It rvas furthe:^ submitted that the Surveyor and Mande.l Revenue Inspector conducted a site inspection and submitted :t report confirming that respon,Jent Nos.5 and 6 had not encroachec. upon government land nor Constructed any structures on the portion of land housing the lavatories or the Peerla Chavidi'

5.ltisfurthersubmittedthatrespondentNos.Sand6have constructed a residential house on their olvn land, r'r'ith valid approval lrom the Nagara Panchal.at. A certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, clated 09.05.2006, states that the open plot bearing FI.No. l-6-213, located near Peerla chavidi admeasuring 311 Square feet, has been in the possession of M. Ramudu, S/o Kistanna, for the past 40 years. The said plot was gifted to his son by Sri M. Ramudu, through a registered gift deed and thereupon the house was constructed. 3

6. The respondent Nos.S and 6 assert that the land alleged by the petitioners is separate and distinct from the land on which they have constructed their house. They further submit that the construction was carried out with proper approval from the Nagara panchayat, Kollapur, and that the allegations made by the petitioners are baseless and untenable'

7. A counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the stand of respondent Nos.S and 6 and clearly states that the construction rvas undertaken on a different parcel of land and that necessary permissions were obtained from the competent authority' [t is also brought to the Court's notice that a civil suit in O'S' 8. No.195 of 2012, is pend,ing before the court of the Hon'ble Junior civil Judge, Kollapur, involving the same subject matter, and the same is pending adjudication as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit. In vieu, of the submissions and material placed before the g. court, it is evident that respondent Nos.S and 6 have constructed the house based on a cluly sanctioned building plan approved by the Nagara Panchayat, Kollapur and the petitioners have not filed t I I t .- 4 any record to show the alleged encroachment upon Peerla Chavidi

10. The petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence t<> substantiate their allegations of illegal construction or encroachrrL€ot by the respondent Nos.S and 6. The contention that the respor Ldents have unlawfull), constructed on public land does not hold 'vater and the petitioners have not substantiated their case.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the liglrt of the contentions of the respondent Nos.l to 4, this Court is of the opinion that the r,r'rit petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, e,nd liable to be dismissed

12. Acc<>rdingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Mis,:ellaneous petitions, if an)- are pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REG OFFICER GANA)

1. One CC to SRt. M. DAMODAR REDDY, Ad 2. One CC to SRI. PUTTA KRISH NA REDDY,(SC F loPUCj One C:C to SRt. L. SHANTHA 3 4. Two C;Cs to Gp FOR REVEN 5. Two C;D Hyderabad lourl Copies RAM , Advocate UE High Court fo r the State of Tela ngana, at To, BIV GJP NT HIGH COIJRT DATED:0'110912025 ORDER WP.No.3207 of 2013 o .JR ( O 2s JAr{ 202[ * * DISMISS;ING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ y(r r\"t \?'