High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in ihe affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an approflriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MandamLs by declaring the action of the respondent No. 5 and hi! sub-ordinates in int{rfering and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner in respect of nisl etot No. 489, Block C, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block -C, GoMhami N{Oar, eOutanagualapally Village, Ramachandrapuram IVandal, Sangareddy Distrlct and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any nbtice or without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary, violative or Arti$es 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the rdspondent No.5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot t\ ( . 489, ad measuring 300 square yards, Block C, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block C, GoMhami Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal. )angareddy District, without following due pro.Jr. of law and without issuing any rr rtice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 .l ,I n 151 CPC praying that in the cir: Petition under Secti theaffidavit filed in .rppoJ of the petition, the High Court ma 7 the respondent No. 5 and fris sub-ordinates not to interfere v,i the,l petitioner in respect otlfris elot No. 489, admeasuring 300 C, lin Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Block-C, GoMhami Nagri Village, Ramchandrapuraln Mandal, Sangareddy District, vr rmstances stated in be pleased to direct h the possession of ;quare yards, Block r, Edulanagulapally .hout following due process of law and withoud issuing any notice. I c unsel for the Petitione J I I: SRI ESLAVATH RAJU I Counsel for the Respond Counsel for the Respond i I Cdunsel for the Respond I i dnt Nos.1,3,4 and 5: SMT. S. SRA\', rNTHl, I Jnt ruo.z: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADlv INISTRATION I URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGP FOR REvI NUE I dnt No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA RE:l |DY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL]TIEIJ Th e Court made the foll ing: ORDER "J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.29643 of 2o2L THE ITTE DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Sri Dr.P.Vijay AND The State of Telangala, Rep. by the Special Chief Secreta-ry to Government, Revenue Department, BRK Bhaval, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Five others. ORDER: ...Petitioner ...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 Starding Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for the respondents. Perused the materia-l on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner frled 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 1n ( respect of petitioner's PIot No.489, Block C, irr Sy.No.135 part, situated at Block-C, Gowthami Nagar, EdulalalJ ralapally Viltage, Ramachaldrapuram Mandal, Salgareddy Distrir:l (for brer.ity, "the subject property") and threatening to Cispossr'r s the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice and r .itho.rt frtllowing due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthe r submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed int rrim order dated

22.11.2021 directing the official respondents no_ to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject prc rerty, except in accordance with the procedure established by Je w. How'ever, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the respor dent authorities have not hled counter or vacate petition for denvjr g the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In .z ew of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow thr Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities not to irL' erfere u.ith the possession of the petitioner over the subject p roperty without a following due process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Govt rnment pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in 1; rssession of the subject property, the respondents will not int :rfere with t\9_ _ _ \ J 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 sha-ll be no order as to costs.

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M SISTANT .NAG ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Sp ecial Chief cretary to Govt, The State ofTelangana, Revenue Departm ent, BRK Bhavan, T S. Secretariat, Hyderabad. Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. Department, T.S. Sebre tariat, Hyderabad. I rvtslo nal Officer, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy

2. The Principal Secr"t! ry to Govt, The State of Telangana, MA and UD 3. The District Coll 4. The Revenue D 5. The Tahsildar, RamJhrndrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District' 6. The Commissioner, fettapur Municipality, Tellapur, Sangareddy District 7. One CC to Sri C. Vilwanatfr, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for evenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at h Hvd erabad [OUT] J r Municip al Administration Urban Development, High 9. Two CC to The GP Cou rt for the State of Telang ana, at Krishna ReddY HyderabadlOUTl , SC for Municipa litiesIOPUCD]

10. One CC to Sri Putt 1'1 .Two CD CoPies JT HIGH COURT D TED:17112120 5 I ORDER WP.No.29643 of 021 'l i ;., . I1Ll (--) C) 0[; * : I 'litlr r ' , DISPOSIN GOFT HE WRIT PETITION ..1-. . --1 WITHOUT COSTS a \ k i Erk