Mohammed Mujeeb Ullah Shareef v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or. order or direction more so in the nature of writ of mandamus, a. declare the actions of the Respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the possession of the Petitioners property and are trying to evict the petitioner from the property in relation to Plot No. 157 admeasuring 284 sq. yds., in Sy. No. 69 and 70, of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally tt/andal, Ranga Reddy District, without any .enquiry or proceedings and without any notice to the petitioner as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14, 21, 3OO-A of Constitution of lndia b. Consequently direct the second and third respondents, not to interfere with petitioners property except in accordance with law c. Further direct the fourth responrient herein to process the building permission, application No. 3/C1 1/0 1 88612O1t) dated 27.08.201 6 of the petitioner, and pass orders for construction of building cver Plot No.'l 57. l.A.NO:1 OF 2016 (WPMP. NO: 38719 OF 2016) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Cc urt may be pleased to direct the fourth respondent to process the building perrrission application No. 31C111O188612016 dated 27 .O8.2016 of the petitioner. l.A.NO:2 OF 2016 (WPMP.NO:38721 OF 20161 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to issue an injunction restraining the second and third respo rdr:nts or his officers, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners prcperty in Plot No. 157 admeasuring 284 sq. yds., in Sy. No. 69 and 70, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally District, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following ORDER L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITIO N No.31295 of 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- i'to decLare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfeing with the possession of the petitioner's property and trying to euict the petitioner from the propertg in retatioi ti plot No.157 admeasuing 284 sq-gds', in Sy.1Vos.69 and 7O of Gachibotuli Village, Seilingampallg Itiandal, Ranga Reddy Distict (subject property) tuithout any enquiry or proceedings and tttithout ang notice to the p"iitionb, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentlg direct 'respondent Nos.2 ctnd 3 not to interfere tuith the p.iition r't property except in accordance to laut"'"

2. The facts of the case in brief a-re that petitioner claims to be owner of subject property purchased from its vendor uide Registered Sale deed No-6871 of 2016 dated 31'05'2016' Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent No'4 for building permission and made application online on 27 'O8 2016' However, all of a sudden, respondent Nos'2 and 3 have come to the petitioner's property ald erected board stating that the property belongs to the Government and is within Sy No'91' When the petitioner questioned about such actions, the officials stated that the property belongs to Government and the Assistant Director, Survey arLd Land Records, Ranga Reddy District has conducted survey on 19 'O4 '2O 1 I and reported that that those plots are faliing in Sy.No.91 and are 2 Government lands and petitioner would bt evicted from the property under Section 6 of the Land Encroa,:hment Act

3. Thereafter, petitioner replied to thr: authorities that neither a notice was issued to him nor an.'' proceedings and that the authorities cannot arbitrarily fix tt e petitioner's plot as Govr:rnment property. The respondent a uthorities without following due process of law were trying to r vict the petitioner from tLre property. It is further submitted that petitioner is having property in Sy.Nos.69 and 7O and nct in Sy.No.91 and that tht: subject plot is regularized by resportdent No.4 on the application submitted by the vendor of the petitioner and a-fter enquiry, respondent No.4 issued proceedings on 31.I2.2O11 after collecting penal charges and regularize,l the subject plot It camo to the notice of petitioner that h is application for building permission was kept in abeyance as the subject land belongs to Covernment.

4..[t is furthqr submitted that in similer circumstances, the other plot holders approached this Couri in W.P.Nos.4162 of 2016 and 15250 of 2016 and this Court lrassed an order of status (luo and directed the respondent auth:rities to complete the enquiry under Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act. 3

5. This Court on 20.09.2076 has passed the following orders: "W.P.No.31295 of 2016 The case of the petitioner is that he applied for building permission to respondent No.4 on 27.o8.2O 16 and no orders are passed and also plots purchased in the lagout were also regularized at the instance of petitioner's uendor. Though tLrc petitioner purchased through registered sale deeds, the respondents are interfeing with his possession. Hence Rule Nisi. CaLl for records. Notice returnable in four u-teeks. WPMP.No.3B721 of 2016 There shall be inteim stay of dlspossession o/ petitioner from the subject propeftA. WPMP.No.3B719 of 2016 There shall be direction to respondent No.4 to dispose of the building permission application dated 27.08.2016 in accordance to lau. Notice." .

6. Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent authorities would submit that building permission for the petitioner has been granted on 15.03.2022 uide Flle No.147014lGHMC/5216 12022. A copy of building permission has been placed before this Court. 4

7. Since, the building permission has alrez dy been issued' as submil-ted by learned Standing Counsel' this Court is of the viewthatnofurtherordersarerequiredtob,:passedinthts writ petltr on.

8. A<:corclingly, this writ petition stands :losed' However' liberty is grantecl to the petitioner to pursue h s remedies' if he is otherwise aggrieved. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendi:lg in this rn'rtt petition shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE coPY" *3[3;h-Y'#HsL# t\6-- SEffiIiI OFFTCER Two ccs to Gp FoR REVENUE, High court for the stale of relangana at [l':"#i;dfl i*mlx+,lsff5,tryi5t?t#isri'J33Hfit100uo""," toPUcl a. Two CD CoPies To

2. J SA PVL (Y HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 .l-i- (J l ;i) ..-. ,I ,\.- '-\ 12 SEP l. t: ':r,. \.j* -,-.'':i -,i .! .'i ,-' ,/ ORDER WP.No.31295 of 2016 -\94.,,,-.-. \\-.-r-':,:.;1 ,;:- 't -l' CLOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 4r&' Yxp)\.\