High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Order No.O7/UC/MABl2O24 dated 1710912024 issued by the Respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to remove the erected gate for the property bearing Door No. l -5-42, situated at Near Kuravi Gate, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District without any authority of law, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 not to interfere with the rd-*V subject property viz., House bearrng Door No. I -5-42, situated at Near Kuravi Gate, Mahabubabad Village and l\,4andal, Warangal District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Order No 071UC/tt4AB 12024 daled 1710912024 issued by the Respondent No.2, pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI B.BALAJI MPCL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VTJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26228 OB 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Mahabubabad Municipality, in passing Order No.OT/JC1MAB/2024 dated

17.09.2024, directing him to remove the erected gate in the property bearing Door No.1-5-42, situated near Kuravi Gate, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondent No.2 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property.

2. Heard Mr. C. Naresh Reddy, leatned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. B. Balaji, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he along with his family members purchased the land admeasuring 3365 square yards with 2 constructed buildings bearing Door No. l-5-42, situated near Kuravi Gate, Mahabubabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District, i.e., subject property, in the auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corpolation (for short 'APSFC'). The APSFC executed registered sale deed bearing document No.352 of 2006 dated 22.02.2006 in lespect of the subject propefty in iavour of the petitioner and his lamily members. 'fhereafter, the petitioner purchased his uncle's 20o% share in the subject propefty under registered reiease deed bearing document No.7994 of 2017 dated19.12.2017, and subsequently the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the Gram Panchayat records vide certificate dated 04.08.2007.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the building in the subject property was in dilapidated condition, the petitioner demolished the buitding and constructed compound wall for protection of the subject property. While things stood thus, when respondent Nos.2 and 3 tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject propefiy, the petitioner filed W.P. No.17505 of 2021, which was 3 disposed ofby this Court by the order dated 06.09.2021, direoting respondent No.2 therein, to take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, by putting the petitioner and all other interested persons on notice and by affording opportunity of hearing to them. Till such exercise was completed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein were directed not to dispossess the petitioner and his family members from the subject propefty

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.17505 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021, in violation of the said order, respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to the subject propefty and damaged the compound wall and the gate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed contempt case in C.C. No.1753 of 2024. It is submitted that subsequently respondent No.2 has issued notice vde ROC.No.G1 /TP1109912023 dated 3 1.08.2024 directing the petitioner to produce the ownership, link documents and building permission in respect of the subject property. However, due to personal reasons, the petitioner could not appear before respondent No.2 and submit l'r..1 ' {;!t-' 4 documents. Further, respondent No.2 issued notice dated

09.09.2024 to the petitioner directing him to come to his office along rvith relevant documents. In corrpliance of the same, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 on 12.09.2024 a:nd submitted all the relevant documents.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 without issuing any show-cause notice and u,ithout giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the ir-npugned order dated 17.09.2024, directing him to remove the erected gate from the subject property within a period of seven (7) da1,s, failing which respondent No.2 would takc action, in accordance with law

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner and onc Mr. Vallapu Upender has encroached 20' feet wide X 220.4' feet length road, approximately 489.77 square yards situated within the limits of Mahabubabad Vitlage and Mandal and erected gate. Respondent No.4 filed a suit in O.S. No.75 of 2O2l before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (for short 'Trial Court'), seeking 5 pennanent injunction. The Trial Court has passed ad-interim injunction order in I.A. No.l47 of 2021 in O.S. No.75 of 2021 dated 22.03.2021 in favour of respondent No.4 and the same was extended from time to time till 21.08.2024. The petitioner has also hled wrirten statement, counter claim in the suit and counter in I.A. No.147 of 2021 in O.S. No.75 of 2021. Suppressing the above facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

8. Leamed counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 subrnitted that the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed ln accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.4, and there is no violation of plinciples of natural justice.

9. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 does not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the title or boundary dispute cannot be decided by respondent No.2. Admittedly, when the suit in O.S. No.75 of 2o2l is pending between the parties, respondent No.2 ought to have relegated the parties to the Civil Court, instead respondent No-2 exceeded his jurisdiction by conducting a roving enquiry. The existence of 20' +- Sir{r ilt'. sr:'ril: &a,s..i 6 feet wide road was decided by respondent No.2 on the basis of the documents submitted by respondent No.4, but not on the basis of any layout.

10. The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject property in the auction conducted by the APSFC and his title to the property is not disputed. On the other hand, it is contended by respondent l{os.4 and 5 that the sale deeds of the petitioner and adjoining plot owners have been carefully examined by respondent No.2 in detail, and categorically it was held in the imougned order that there is 20' feet road, and the petitioner was directed to remove the gate erected in encroached 20' feet wide road *'ithin seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The suit in O.S. No.75 of 2021 was filed by respondent No.4 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and one Mr. Koduru Soma Narsimha Reddy, and their family members, relatives, agents, workmen, etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule propefty and also restrain from using 20' feet width X 220.4 feet length, approximately 489.77 square yards to ingress and egress the 7 schedule property. Thus, essentially the dispute in the suit is regarding the 20' feet road for which the impugned order has been passed. I 1 . In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is a summary proceeding and wilt be subject to the result of the suit. The result of the suit will be binding on respondent No.2. Thus, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.75 of 2021, if the impugned order is implemented, the petitioner would be put to hardship.

12. [n view of the above, the writ petition is disposed ofl, keeping the impugned Order No.07/UC|MAB|2O24 dated 11 .09.2024 passed by respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Mahabubabad Municipality, in abeyance until the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.75 of 2021. Further, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No.75 of 2021, as expeditiously as possible' prelerably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by the observations madd in this order, and in the impugned order of respondent No.2. There shall be no order as to costs' l!. 8 q As a sequel thereto. miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// .SD/-K,BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1

2. J. 4 t) 7 o Urban Development The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration a Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner, It4ahabubabad Municipality, Mahabubabad District 506 101 The Town Planning Officer, I\.4ahabubabad Municipality l\4ahabubabad District 506 101 One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR N/CPL ADIVN & URBAN DEV, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR IVPCL IOPUC] One CC to SRI B.BALAJI, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER WP.No.26228 of 2024 .a---: 11li L i 1".,:, ;. ()r, !) ( o \:\1 \:,,, \\ OI AUE zffi _^/..ln..r- \.:: I I i i I I i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \l