Sri Katari Ramalinga Raju 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the a nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates in interfering and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 257, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block - A, GoMhami Nagar, Ed ulanagualapally Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice or without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary, violative or Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.5 and his sub-ordir: tes not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot N r . 257, admeasuring 500 square yards, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block A. Gowthami Nagar, Ed ulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal iangareddy District, without following due process of law and without issuing any I rtice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the citr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere rv lh the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 257, admeasuring 50C square yards, Block A, in Sy. No. 'l 35 part, situated at Block-A, Gowthami Na3 rr, Edulanagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, I ithout following due process of law and without issuing any notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ESLAVATH RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5: SMT. S. SRA\ ANTHI, AGP FOR Rt: /ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL At) iIINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA F:l DDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.28818 of 2O2l THE 17TH DAY OF DBCEMBER 2025 Between: Sri Katari Ramalinga Raju. AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by' the Special Chief Secretar5r to Government , Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (5) others. ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Eslavath Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.5 and their sub-ordinates in interfering with and demolishing the compound wali of the petitioner in 'I I 2 \*nT - respect of petitioner's Plot No.257, Block A, in iiy.No.135 part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanaguat. Lpa11y Viltage, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District f-or brevity, ,,the subject property") and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice and r., thout following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthcr submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed int: .im order dated 16.11.2O2 i directing the official respondents not . o interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject pr(l erty, except in accordance with the procedure established by lz-..r. However, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the resporr lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyitr { the averments made by the petitioner in the u,rit affidavit. In r i :w of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the J/rit petition by directing the respondent authorities not to in t :rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject l).operty without following due process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Go.".e rnment pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in I), ,ssession of the subject property, the respondents r,r'ill not in - .rfere with the 3 petitioner's possession over the subject property, without following due process of law ald requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. In view of the submissions made on either side, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due procedure of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Miscella.eous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER oT '1 . The Special Chief Secretary to Govt, The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, BRK Bhavan, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its The Principal Secretary to Govt, I\/A and UD Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 5. The Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. 6. The Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality, Tellapur, Sangareddy District. 7. One CC to Sri Eslavath Raju, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. One CC to Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, SC for MunicipalityloPUCl

10.Two CC to The GP for [\/unicipal Administration Urban Devetopment, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OU!

11.Two CD Copies TJ HIGH COURT DATE D:1 711212025 ORDER WP.No.28818 of 2021 --i:== E c o C) 0 }iN J ?026 7Ji '); * ,r ).: S r--q-.. -' .a? -., DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION i} WITHOUT COSTS