Smt. Daatla Venkata Subba Laxmi 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the 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. 331 . Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block - B. Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagualapally 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 a consequently direct the respondent No.5 and his sub-onl lates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot Jo. 33'1 , admeasuring 400 square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated rt Block B, Gowtham Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram lt/and,r Sangareddy District. without following due process of law and without issuing an I rotice. lA NO: 1 OF 202'l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr: y be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere \ /ith the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 331, admeasuring 4 ) ) square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block-B, GoMhami Nir ar, Edulanagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram [Vlandal, Sangareddy District, 'rithout 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. SRl,l ANTHI, AGP FOR Rt: /ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AI) iIINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Rt 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.2882L of 2O2l THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Smt. Daatla Venkata Subba Laxmi AND ... Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretar5r to Government , Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (5) others. ORDER: ...Respondents 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 r,r,ith and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner 1n r 2 respect of petitioner's Plot No.33 1, Block B, Sy.No.135 Part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagua tapally Village, Ramachardrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (for brevity, "the subject propertl,") and threatening to disposse s s the petitioner from her p1ot, rvithout issuing any notice and rithout following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furtl'r : . submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed in., rim order dated

16.11.2021 directing the official respondents no1 .o interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject pro )ert),, except in accordance with the procedure established by lir v. However, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the respor-r lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyin; the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In vi:w of the same, iearned counsel requested this Court to allow the i/rit petition by directing the respondent authorities not to ir-r, .rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject lr operty without following due process of 1aw.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Govt: nment pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in pc ssession of the subject property, the respondents will not in t € :fere with the 3 petitioner's possession over the subject property, without following due process of law ard 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. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY SSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Special Chief Secretary to Govt. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, BRK Bhavan, T,S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt. The State of Telangana, MA 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 Tahsi.!dar, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. 6. The Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality, Tellapur. Sangareddy District. 7. One CC to Sri Eslavath Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 8. 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 Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OuT] '1 1.Two CD Copies TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.28821 of 2021 -i F O I iill ?[2] * <../ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ .)o'

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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the 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. 331 . Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block - B. Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagualapally 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 a consequently direct the respondent No.5 and his sub-onl lates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot Jo. 33'1 , admeasuring 400 square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated rt Block B, Gowtham Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram lt/and,r Sangareddy District. without following due process of law and without issuing an I rotice. lA NO: 1 OF 202'l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr: y be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere \ /ith the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 331, admeasuring 4 ) ) square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block-B, GoMhami Nir ar, Edulanagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram [Vlandal, Sangareddy District, 'rithout 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. SRl,l ANTHI, AGP FOR Rt: /ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AI) iIINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Rt 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.2882L of 2O2l THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Smt. Daatla Venkata Subba Laxmi AND ... Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretar5r to Government , Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (5) others. ORDER: ...Respondents 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 r,r,ith and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner 1n r 2 respect of petitioner's Plot No.33 1, Block B, Sy.No.135 Part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagua tapally Village, Ramachardrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (for brevity, "the subject propertl,") and threatening to disposse s s the petitioner from her p1ot, rvithout issuing any notice and rithout following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furtl'r : . submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed in., rim order dated

16.11.2021 directing the official respondents no1 .o interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject pro )ert),, except in accordance with the procedure established by lir v. However, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the respor-r lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyin; the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In vi:w of the same, iearned counsel requested this Court to allow the i/rit petition by directing the respondent authorities not to ir-r, .rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject lr operty without following due process of 1aw.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Govt: nment pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in pc ssession of the subject property, the respondents will not in t € :fere with the 3 petitioner's possession over the subject property, without following due process of law ard 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. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY SSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Special Chief Secretary to Govt. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, BRK Bhavan, T,S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt. The State of Telangana, MA 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 Tahsi.!dar, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. 6. The Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality, Tellapur. Sangareddy District. 7. One CC to Sri Eslavath Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 8. 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 Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OuT] '1 1.Two CD Copies TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.28821 of 2021 -i F O I iill ?[2] * <../ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ .)o'