The High Court · 2025

1. tt/and alojuSrinivasu lu, S/o.Late Sri. t\il.Anantharamultl. lrged.about 56 years' H.No.2-4, Beside Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, lvlalkapuram village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist.

2. Ivlandaloiu Govinda Chari, S/o. S/o.Late Sri. tr4 Anantharamulu, Aged about 53 years H.No.2-4, Beside Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, ltilalkapuram village, Choutuppal [t/landal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist

3. Mandalolu Chandrashekar,, S/o. Late. Sri. tt/uthyalu, Aged about 47-year.s Occ. Caipenter, Rio. H.No.2-5, Beside Sri Ramalingesvrara Svramy Temple' Malkapuram village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist. ' ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 |) 'telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural State of Developrnent Dept., Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. District Panchayat Officer, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri Distrir:t. Bhuvanagiri lVlalkapu|am. Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary li4alkapuram Village, Choutuppal [t/andal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist. ./

4. Kancharla Ramreddy, S/o.Late. Veerareddy, Aged 59 years, OccCultivation, R/o.H.No.1-4, Malkapuram village. Choutuppal IVlandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

5. Kancharla Venkatareddy,, Sio.Aged 40 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No."l-3, Malkapuram Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of thre Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,.. the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Direction or Order, more particularly, in the nature of the Write of l\ilandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.3, in issuing the Notice dt.06-12-2019, without conducting any enquiry/panchanama and without considering the Written Reply submitted by the Petitioners and directing to demolish the wall within 24 hours from the receipt of the said notice is illegal, arbitrary and in contrary to the principles of natural justice, and thereby further be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notice dt.06-12-2019, issued by the, Respondent No.3. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 notice dated 06-12-2019 issued by the respondent No.3. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ASHOK TALLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI G.NARENDER REDDY' SC FOR GP Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : SRI J.PRABHAKAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TITE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KU]\{AR 'WRIT PETITION Nos.22l85 and 27473 of 2019 COMMON ORDER: Sirce the /rs involved in both the Writ l'eLitions are intercoruleoted and the parties being common, thel are being disposed of b1' this common order W.P.No,22l85 of 2019

2. The petitioners herein by thc present Writ Pctitiort ttrc seeking to declare thc inaction on the part of rcspondent Nos.2 aLrcl ] in not preventing the encroachments and illegal construction made by the unofficiz.l respondents in thc land adjoining Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy fcmple at Dandu Malkapuram village. (-'houtuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District (for short ' I cmple') AS i[[egal, ;rbitrary and violativc of the provisions of the, Tclangana I'anchayrt Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'the Act'). with a consequential dircclior to respondcnt Nos.2 and 3 to take appropriatc action utl thc illcgrLl constructions madc thereon by removing the slmc. 2 W.P.No.27473 of 2019

3. The petitioners herein arc respondent Nos.4 to 6 in W.P.No.22185 of 2019, and by the present Writ Petition, they seek to declare the action of respondents more particularly respondent No.3 in issuing notice dated 06-12-2019 without conducting any cnquiry/panchnama and without considering the written reply/cxplanation submittcd by them and directing them to dcmolish the wall within 24 hours from thc receipt of notice. which action, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. For the ease of reference. the parties will bc referred to as per their array in W.P.No.22185 of 2019.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents, are trying to encroach the publio propcrly belonging to the'l'cmple adjacent to their property with a mala fide intention / obtique motive and that the 3d respondent is not taking steps to prevent such encroachment , /./ 3

6. The petitioners contend that the unofficial respon'Cents are their ncighbours and are all carpenters by professiorr tiom their' lorefathcrr. and that they have no enmity lvith them at anv p'rint of

7. It is the lufther case of petitioners that while the unolficial respondcrt initialty uscd to do carpentry work with halid Lools, duc to teohnological advancement. they started using hcar'1 machinerv fbr thc pruposc of cutting wood, carving, engraving and drilling resulting in heavy noise and giving rise to sai'v dusL leading nr environm.:nt pol lution.

8. It is thc furthcr case of petitioners that as thc unofficial respondents by using the machincry in their professional work, arc causing roise pollution in thc neighborhood, the petlti')ners gavc representrttion dated 0t-12-2017 to the 3'd respondcnt lnd as no action u,rs taken thereon, the petitioncrs have approachcd this Court by tiling W.P.No.38ti0 of 2018, wherein nottcc has been issued to the respondents and the same is pending as oidate. .I 4

9. Petitioners further contend that on they fiting the subject Writ Pctition, the unofficial respondents herein have stopped thc work and thereafter are trying to erect a tin shed in front of their house in the land belonging to Endowment Department and Gram panchayat slrown as Grama Kantam land.

10. Petitioners further contend that the aforesaid land wherein the unofficial respondents are trying to erect a shed for their carpcntry work does not belong to them and the said construction is being made without taking any permission from the 3'd respondent. I l. Petitioncrs also contended that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Nalgonda had issued orders datetl jl-07- 2019 thal the land adjacent to the unofficial respondents, house admeasuring 310 sq. yards belongs to thc femple and requesred the 3'd rcspondent to take over the vacant land.

12. Petitioners further contend that the unofficial respondents havc only right in respect of land admeasuring 141 sq. yards tiovrever, in excess of the said land, they have takcn up ) 5 construction of shed by encroaching into the land ol the Temple betonginp to the Endowmcnt Department; that despitc the petitioners giving a detailed report on 21-09-201tt to rhe 3'd respondertt and the Executive Officer of the Temple- tlo action is taken; anrl that. the unoflicial respondents are proceedin-q with thcir construct on of erection of sheds.

13. Petilioners also contend that thc land of the Templ: r'rhich is kept vacz.nt is intcnded to be used by thc devotees and visil.ors of thc l'emJ,le for parking their vehiclcs and ibr other purlloses, and due to thr: said tand being cncroachcd by the unofficial rerspondents herein, the visitors/devotees of the Temple are parking, their vehiclcs in front of pctitioncrs' house and also throrving littcr thereby r;ausing lot of inconvenience to the pctitioners; and that despite tlre same being brought to thc notice of 3'd rcsp'rndont, no action is taken thcreou.

14. Thus, the petitioners contend that they have no other altcrnatir e remedy exccpt to invoke the jurisdiction 01' this Coufi undcr Article 226 o[ the Constitution of India. l 6

15. The case of the unofficial respondents is that on the petitioners approaching this Coun vidc W.P.No.22 I 85 of 20 19. wherein this Court by order dated 14-10-2019 having directed the 3'd respondent to take action on the representation said to have bcen given by the petitioners therein in accordance with law, thc 3'd respondent without issuing any notice , has informcd the unolficial respondents in person on 05-12-2019 at 5 p.m., that on 06-12-2019 the authorities would be coming with mcn and machinery to demolish the wall and gate, to which the unofhcial respondents claim to have submitted explanation on 06-12-2019 setting out in detail their defcnce.

16. The unofficial respondents contend that in front ol their house, there is an open space of 310 sq. yards which has bccn under occupation of their families wherein they were doing their carpentry work for over 100 years; that thc said area of 310 sq. yards was surrounded by mud wall and a wooden gate; that as the said mud walls was constructed long back ar-rd having become old, had collapsed about two years back during rainy season; and that .) 7 the uno ficial respondents thereafler raiscd new wall with bricks and ccrrcnl in thc placc of old mud wall and rcplzrct tl lhe rvoodcn gate wrt'l lron gate.

17. 'fh,: unofficial rcspondcnts furthcr contend that thc pctitioncrs u,ho arc inimical tou'ards thcm. arc continuousll lodging one complaint altcr anothcr as the unotflcial rcspondcnts have opposed the actit,n ol'petitioncr lionr cutting dorvn the nccnl lrc(' in t-ront ol' their horrsc. trndcr uhich thcv rrcrc carn'ing on thc crtrpr'ntry u'ork. and thus. bore grudgo against thcnr

18. Th,: unofllcial respondents further contend thal on 27-09- 2019, the 3'd rcspondent had issucd notice stating thal thc unolllcial respond:nts lraving constructed a housc without pcrtttission and directed to stop such construction irnmcdiately; that on rcceipt ol' albresail notrcc, thcy had submittcd a rcply on 30-t)9-20)9. upon lvhich thc 3"i rcspondent bcing satisficd with thc :xplauatiotr submillt:d. closed the case afler duc enquiry; and thal thcrc is no unauthorizcd construction exisling. I 8

19. The unofficial respondents further contend that on the 3'd respondent closing the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners have approached this Court claiming that thcy have submitted a represcntation to the 3'd respondent and the same is not being acted upon, and this Court dirccted the 3'd respondent to take action thereon in accordance lvith law

20. Thc unofficial respondents lurther contended that the 3d respondent on receiving the aforesaid interim order of this Court, had straight away issued notice dated 06-12-2019 claiming as per the direction of the High Court in W.P.No.22185 of 2025 and the direction of the District Panchayat O1ficer, directed the unofllcial respondents to remove the walls constructed by them within 24 hours, failing which, the same would be removed by the Gram Panchayat at the cost ofthe unofficial respondents. 21 . The unofficial respondents contend that immediately on receipt of the aforesaid notice, they have submitted detailed explanation as to how the construction of compound wall was / / ('1 9 made by thern, and thus sought for suspension of the notice dated 06-12-20 9

22. Head lcarncd counsel lor petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, leamed Govcmment Plcader for panchal at l(zrj and Sri G.Narender Reddy, Ieamed Standing Counsel appearing on behall ofofficial respondents. and perused the record.

23. The case of the petitioners as sct out in W.l,.No.22l g5 of 2019 is that thc unolficial respondcnts hercin arc cncroaching into the land of the Temple belonging to the L.ndowment"s l)epaflrnents and constructing a tin shed therein without obraining an1 permission or sanction; and that thc 3'd respondent and the Endowme rt Department are nol_ taking any action to proted the land of the Temple.

24. Howt:ver, it is to bc noted that the petitioners while claiming the subjecl land as bclonging to thc l'emple under the control ofthe Endowment Department, however, did not choose to nrake the I 10 Endowment Department a paf)" to the Writ Petition being the custodian of the said land.

25. l"urther, the petitioners by W.P.No.22185 of 2019 claim of unofficial respondents having undertaken construction in the said land by erecting a tin shcd without permission from the 3'd respondent. Though, thc 3'd respondcnt by noticc <iated 27 -Q9-2019 as issued to the unofficial respondents had stated that the unofficial respondents having encroached/grabbed the land adjacent to the Temple and making construction therein without any permission, it is not shown to this Court of the 3'd respondent taking any lurther action pursuant to the said notice.

26. Further, it is to be noted that though, the unofficial respondents in the Writ Petition filed by them vide W.P.No.27473 of 20 I t have claimed to have submitted explanation on 30-09-2019 in response to the notice dated 27-09-2019, copy of such explanation has not been filed by them along with their Writ Petition or by filing a counter in W.P.No.22l85 of 2019. Thus, rhis Court cannot either accept thc claim of the petitioners ,) 11 W.P.No.2'7473 of 2019 of the 3'd respondent of having accepted their explanation and closed the case or the same is pending consideration r.vith the said authority.

27. Whil: that being so, the pctitioncrs have approar:hcd this Court claiming inaction on the part of official respondent Nos'2 and 3 to prevent the encroachment and illega[ construction antl also not consicering their rcpresentation datcd 2l-09-2019. This Courl. whilc ordr:ring noticc in the aloresaid Writ Petition, rlircctecl the 3"1 rcspondert to take action on the rcprcsentation of'the p'ctitioncrs in accordance with law. The 3'd respondent thereafter seems to have issued nirtice dated 06-12-2019 to the unofficial respondents tlirecting .hcm to remove thc wall constructed and the gat': fixcd by them within 24 hours, faiting which the authorities u'ould take action tbr removal at the cost ol the unolficial respondents. 'fhis has triggt:red the unolficial respondents to approach this Court bv filing the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2l473 of 2019 against the action of the 3'J respondent. l

28. While. the petitioners in both the Writ petitions, who are neighbor to one another, continued to fight to settle their alter egos, it is to be noted that the respondent authorities, who are required to discharge their duties in accordance with the powers conferred under the Act. cannot take sides. 'fhough, thc petitioners claim of the unofficial respondents erecting a tin shed without permission, thc unofficial respondents in response to the noticc dated 06-12-2019 issued pursuant to thc direction of this Court to consider the representation submitted by the petil.ioners, had only stated the unofficial respondents having made unauthorized construction of compound wall and crccting a gate in the land adjacent to the Temple.

29. It is also to be noted that cven on earlier occasion i.e. on 27-09-2019 when the 3'd respondent had issued notice, it was claimed that the unofficial respondents being in possession of land in excess of their holding as per Gram Panchayat records by encroaching into the adjacent temple land and making construction therein. However, while stating as above, the notice did not r',' 13 indicate the nature o[ construction that is being madc, whether it is erection ol tin shed as claimcd by the petitiotrers or only construction of compound wall and erection ol gat,: as stated in norice date<1 06-12-2019 issued pursuant to the direction of this Court in its interim order dated 14-10-2019. 'fhe 3'd respondcnt in its notic: issued on 23-09-2019 or the order dated 0(i- t2-2019 did not melltion about existence of any shed as cla.inled bv tl-re petitiont:rs.

30. Further. if at all thc unolficial respondents ha',e resorted to any enc'oachmcnt and had made any construction thcr,:in without obtaining any permission from the 3'd respondent, the rluthori[z is rcquired to take fi.rther action pursuant to the noticc d:rted 27-09- 2019, to u,hich the unofhcial respondents clairr ol' having submittt:d explanation on 30-09-201 9 (copy not file cl inlo Court). 'Ihe 3'd respondent instead ol taking action in furtlicranco of the noticc issued by him, however, had straight awal is;sued orcler dated (.6-12-2019 (subject matter of W.P.No.27473 ol. 2019) directin;g the unofficial respondents to remove the rvall constructed I 14 by them within 24 hours. The said order of the 3'd respondent impugned in W.P.No.27473 of 2019 does nor refleot of the 3'd respondent considering the explanation submitted by thc unofficial respondents, and having passed the said order on duc consideration of the said explanation. On the other hand, a perusal of the order dated, 06-12-2019 would show that the said order is being issued pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.22lU5 of 2019 dated 14-10-2019 and not by considering the explanation of the unofficial respondents.

31. It is to be noted that this Court in W.P.No.22185 of 2019, white directing the 3'd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners therein dated 21-09-2019, had caregorically directcd the 3'd respondent to take action in accor<lance with law, which means by issuing notice to the affected party, considering their explanation, if any and also giving opportunity of personal hearing to them thereby complying with rhe principles of natural justice. Admittedly, no such action seems to have been taken by the 3'd respondent, who instead of following the principles of natural I 15 justice, had straight away issued order dated 06-12-2019 directing thc uno ificial respondents to remove the unauthorizcd wall construcled by them rvithin 24 hours.

32. Though. on behalf of the unofficial rcsporrdcnts, it is contended that the said wall has been constructed bv them in thc placc okl eristing old mud wal[, rvhich had collapscd ahout t\^ o years ba,:k during rainy season, it is to be seen that as per Soction 2(2) of lhe Act, the dcfinition of 'Building' includcs a r'r'all. lor which p:rmission is required to bc obtained, be it 'ertovution or rcconstnrctiou.

33. In the abscnce ofthe unofficial respondents having placed any matcrial be{bre this Court to show that they har ing obtained permission 1br undertaking such reconstruction. the said construction cannot be held to be valid. [ [owcver. the 3'd respondent. who has been directed by this Court in W.P.No 22185 of 2019 to consider the represenialion of the unolficiirl respondents, is required to go into all thesc issues befbre taking f rrther action in the matter. Only then, it can be said that 16 the proposed action of being in accordancc with [aw. I'he 3'd respondent instead had straight away issued the impugned procceding directing the unofficial respondcnts to remove thc same, which in the considered vicrr of this Court. cannot be held as bcing in accordance with law tbr it to bc sustained

34. Accordingty, W.P.No.274l3 of 2019 is allorved and thc impugned noticc dated 06-12-2019 is sct asidc.

35. Since, the petitioners allege the unofficial respondents having taken up erection of tin shed u,ithout permission and thc 3'd respondent having issued noticc dated 27 -09-2019 claiming the unolficial respondents therein having encroached on to thc q'a), adjar:ent to the Temple and having undertaken construction therein without permission, this Court is of the vicw that the 3'd respondent authority is to be directed to considcr the explanation stated to have been submitted by the petitioncrs on 30-09-2019 (copy not hled into Court) and take further action thcreon strictly as per Scction 43 of the Act after issuing notice to all the parties concerned including the Endowments Department, which claims the subject land as 17 bclonginp. to the Temple under the control of the Flrrdorvtnent Departmc nt 36 Subject to above observation and direction, W.P.No.22 lti5 of 2019 is d sposcd of. No order as to costs

37. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if an]' shali stand closcd To, //TRUE COPY// S ALLIKARJUNA RAO M STANT REGISTRAR i SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Prir cipal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural- Qevelopment Dept , Secretariat, State of Telingana, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500022

2. The District Panchayat officer, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district, Bhuvanagiri.- 5081 16

3. The Se:retary, I\/alkapuram Gram Panchayat, I\ilalkapuram -508202 Choutuptrral (m) Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Dist., 4 One CC 1o SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 5 One CC 1o SRI ASHOK TALLA, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. Two cct; to GP FoR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DE\'i'' High court for the .1-elangana. State of [OUT] T One CC 10 SRI G.NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GPPS [OPUC] 8. Two CD tlopies. BSK BSJ I t t HIGH COI,,'RT DATED:2710612025 ) \ e '1 t COMMON ORDER WP.No.22185 & 27473 of 2019 /1_ ...:- ...,i...,11.1>\ \_ _-_._.- ,, .,-\-.. '. ( 16 )EP m6 \t\,)'r >l;., (. L) . t J;, DISPOSING OF THE WP.N0.22185 & ALLOWING THE W.P.No.274t3 ot 2019 WITHOUT COSTS L LI It