lVl. Usha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 o't 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 Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordin4tes in interfering and demolishing the compound wall oJ the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 425, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at, 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 consequently direct the respondent No.5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot ll r. 425, admeasuring 500 square yards, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated rt GoMhami Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangar:ddy 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 cirr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 umstances stated in be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and his sub-ordinates not to interfere lv lh the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 425, admeasuring 503 A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at GoMhami Nagar, Eduli square yards, Block nagulapally Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, without follc ,,uing 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'V q,NTHl, AGP FOR RE'/:NUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADI IINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMEN'I Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Rl: )DY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIEI The Court made the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH WRTT PETITIO N No.31321 of 2O2t THE 17TII DAY OF. DECEMBER 2025 Between: Smt. M.Usha Rani ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretaqr to Government, Revenue Department, BRK Bhaval, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Five others. ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Eslavath Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, Iearned 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 wa-ll of the petitioner in a respect of petitioner's Plot No.425, Block A, i:r Sy.No.135 part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagt I lapally Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy Distrir: (for brevity, ,,the subject property") and threatening to dispossr: rs the petitioner from his plot, wiLhout issuing any notice ancl , zithout following due process of law, as illega_l and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furth t r submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed int:rim order dated Ol.I2.2O2l directing the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject prc perty, except in accordance with the procedure established by lz w. However, in spite of lapse of more tha, four years, the respor dent authorities have not Iiled counter or vacate petition for denvir g the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. In ,r ew of the same, learned counsel requested this court to allow th: writ petition bv directing the respondent authorities not to ir I :rfere r.r-ith the possession of the petitioner over the subject p:operty without a following due process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Gor< rnment pleader for Revenue submits tfuat if the petitioner is in 1> ,ssession of the subject property, the respondents will not inr rrfere with the 7 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 stald closed SD/-M, NAGAMANI AS ISTAN T REGISTR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Soecial Chief Secretary to Govt, The State of Telangana, Revenue Depatment, BRK Bhavan, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt, The State of Telangana, MA and UD Department, T.S. Secrbtariat, Hyderabad I

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.TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'at g. i,,ir;-bc6t6e cp ror Nilunicipal Administration-Urban Development, High - Courtlor tne State of Telangana, at Hyd-erabad[OUT] -O'ne'C6 io Sri putta Krishn"a Reddy, SC for Municipalities[OPUcD] f o. 11.Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1 711212025 ORDER WP.No.31321 of 2021 r lli 1 ) '4.) ': o o ,iAll \''* .:\ _,., . ..i:., . ) -,. ii -.Zl'c ,;: ll -t."\/il -f, ,'/ ' -1,' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t \ \J \}" . :1 .,.:,'\:,-. lr. 1,.,,,,. i -." :."iJ