The High Court · 2025

Sri Podichetty Shyam Kumar, S/o p.Krishna. Business, nyo U.trto. t Z Dirsukhnasar, Hyo",aoai'1H,'?;,."'li" i#:?:R.ft*T.i!3HL.ourJr"n"!i,3,;'3; AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telanoana ;$ge.Oy its The Special Chief Secretary to Govt, Revenue Departm6nt, enK bhira",' i.sl5""IrltJiirt, Hyderabad. 2. The State of Telanoana, ftsp by its The principal Secretary to Govt., MA and U D De pa rtme nt, r."s. s ec re[a ri5t,' nvo!-r" dlli". "'' " 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. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of wrh of Mandamus by decraring the action of the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates in interfering and demorishing the compound wafi of the petitioner in respect of his prot No. 640, Brock 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 foilowing due process of law, is a illegal, arbitrary, violative or Articles 14, 21and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.S and his sub-ordinates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot No. 640, admeasuring 400 square yards, Brock B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Brock B, Gowthami Nagar, Eduranagurapaily viilage, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice. ; lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 640, admeasuring 400 square yards, Block B, in sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block_B, Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagulapaily Viilage, Ramchandrapuram Mandat, sangareddy District, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice and pass Counsel for the petitioner:SRl ESLAVATH RAJU Counsel for the Respondents No 1,3 To 5: SMT S. SRAVANTHI AGp FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No 2 : Gp FoR MAUD Dpr counsel for the Respondent No 6 : sRt PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY sc FoR MUNICIPALITTES The Court made the following: ORDER t l II IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 29490 of 2O2L THE 17TII DAY OF DECEMBER2O2S Between: Sri Podichetty Shyam Kumar ...Petitioner AND 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 i 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.S and their sub-ordinates in interfering with and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner in ! \ 2 respect of petitioner's plot No.64o, Block B, in sy.No.135 part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanaguarapally vilage, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (for brevity, ..the subject property") and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed interim order dated 19' 1 1 .2021 directing the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject property, except in accordance with the procedure established by Iaw. However, in spite of lapse of 'more than four years, the respondent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In view of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the Writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without I following due process of law.

4. on the other hand, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents will not interfere with the \ i\ petitioner's possession over the subject property, without following due process of law and 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 ASS!STANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The The bpecial Chief Secreta Telangana, BRK Bhavan, T.S. ry to Govt, Revenue Department, State of Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The The Principal Secretary to Govt., MA and UD Department, State of Telangana, :f.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] L t D

9. TWO CCS tO GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DpT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

10. One CC to SRI SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES, [OPUC]

11. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.29490 of 2021 t SIA 01 JIN ?t]2[ fr * ! o \ I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t ol.r' \