Sri. L.Saraswathi v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 nature of Writ of [\/andamus 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. 592, Block B, in Sy. No. '135 part, situated at Block -B, Gowthami 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-ordirl rtes not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot f'l ,. 592, admeasuring 400 square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 'l 35 part, situated z I Block B, Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal Sangareddy District, without following due process of law and without issuing any r ltice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the ci1 umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mzl be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere'r th the possession of the petitioner in respect of his PIot No. 592, admeasuring 4C( square yards, Block B, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block-B, Gowthami Nag ar, Edula nagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District v 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. SRI,\ ANTHI, AGP FOR Rl: /ENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AI) vIINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENl Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Fll :DDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALIT)' The Court made the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH UTRIT PETITION N0.29585 of 2O2l THE 17TH DAY OF DBCEMBER 2025 Between: Sri L. Saraswathi ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. by the Special Cnl.f Se..eta-ar to Government , Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (5) others. ORDER: ...Respondents Heard Sri Eslavath Raju, learrred counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assista,t 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 wall of the petitioner in 2 respect of petitioner's Plot No.592, Block B, 1n I y.No.135 Part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagua.r pally Village, Ramachaldraplrram Mandal, Sangareddy District t or brevity, "the subject property") and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his p1ot, without issuing any notice and t,, thout following due process of law, as illega1 and arbitrary

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, whiie admitting the matter, this Court passed int:'im order dated

19.11.2021 directing the official respondents not 1: interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject prcl erty, except IN accordance with the procedure established by 1e', r. However, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the respotL lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyirr 1 the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In vi ,w of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the l/rit Petition by directing the respondent authorities not to in L :rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject I) operty without following due process of 1aw.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Gove -nment Pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in 1,r ssession of the subject property, the respondents will not in,, rfere with the 3 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 ASSISTANT R DY TRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Chief Secretary t9 G-ovt, The Statqof 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 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 [OUTI

9. One CC to Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, SC for lr'4unicipalitylOPucl lO.TwoCCtoTheGPforMunicipalAdministrationUrbanDevelopment,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] 'l 1.Two CD CoPies TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.29585 ot 2021 ';tsr??t:\ -1-'. ,1 .....)\', O I * :\ 'l)\ ,li' rr:J ?.ij -ar,'f i--_-- -., DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION t WITHOUT COSTS ( \ (, +2