Kamlesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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 order, writ or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring action of the Respondent No. 4 in interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner property i.e. Plot bearing no.18 land admeasuring 259-9 Sq' mtrs in Sy. No. 140, situated at Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District., without following due process of law is nothing but arhitrally, illegal null and void and violation of principle of natural justice and also violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of the lndia. Consequently direct the respondent no.4 not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner proPerty. f lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondent nos. 4 not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioner property i.e. Plot bearing no.-18land admeasuring 259-9 Sq. mtrs in Sy. No. .140, situated at Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar lvlandal, Rangareddy Drstrict., and pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.MANGULAL Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER 'a) HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.20586 OF 2025 - ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. R. Mangulal, leamed counsel for the petitioner and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Assignmcnt appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.l 8, admeasuring 3 I 1 square yards or 259.9 square meters in Survey No.l40, situated at Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar Mandat, Rangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No 2986 of 2008, dated 30.07.2008. He has also obtained letter of approval lor commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024 lrom the Manikonda Municipality for construction of Ground + I Upper Floor. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that he has commence<l the construction within six (06) months liom the date of approval for commencement of work and he is going to complete the same within three (03) years. In proof of commencement of worlg he has filed photographs. He is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the letter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024. Tltere is no deviation. Even then, respondent 2 KL, J W.P.sro.20586 ofz0li No.4 is interfering with the construction without following due proccdurc laid down under law. Challenging the said action of re sponderrt No.4, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. i. Whereas, learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.2 to ,{ rvill fbllow' the procedure laid down under law befbre taking action against the petitioner herein. The subject propcrty is dcclarcd undcr surplus and possession was taken over in C.C. No.Hl /5603/76.

4. I-camed counsel for thc petitioner referring to the memo dated 28.07.2014. would oontend that the subject property is not covere d under ULC.

5. As stated above, to prove that the petitioner herein is the o$,ner o['thc sub.ieot property, he has filed copies ofregistered sale decd, iink document and the aforesaid memo dated 28.07.2014 of the Spccial Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, I{yderabad and lcltcr of approval for commencement of work/instant approval datcd 04.05.2024 of Manikonda Municipality. It is the specific case that he is procceding with construction strictly in accordance rvith the building permit order. There is no deviation. In proof of t w 3 KI-, J W P No.20iE6 of2025 the same, he has filed photographs. The said letter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024 is intact. Therefore, if the subject property is covcred under ULC, respondent Nos.2 to 4 can take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. In the light of the above discussion' this writ pctition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 not to interfere with the construction undertaken by thc petitioner pursuant to the lctter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated

04.05.2024 issued by Manikonda Municipality without following due procedure laid down under law. Howcver, the petitioner shall proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with letter of approval for commencement of worl</instant approval dated

04.05.2024, failing which, liberry is granted to the Municipality to take action against the petitioner herein in accordance with law. ln the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REG TRAR SEC FICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,Rajendranagar,RangaReddyDistrict' 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandipet Mandal, Neknampur Village' Ranga Reddy District. ....rt .*.t: -=.r&t;:'--{rrat.-;:.?ryt-:11-.Yii,j1*& -::-"r -:::*' *'i.'.!:a-6;.--*l 'Ji- / i : !\ \ \

5. One CC to SRI R.MANGULAL, Advocate [OPUC] . 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] ,/

7. Two CD Copies o- BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 I f { ORDER ( fA I I SEP 206 -.1 + v.\ ,. WP.No.20586 of 2025 - '':iir,-:r r.l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .(-