The High Court · 2025

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 impugned order vide proc., No.Br371/512024 and Notice No'81371r5r2024 dared.22-08-2025 Uts.6 0f Land Encroachrnent Act,1g05 passed by the respondent No.4, pending disposal of the above writ petrtion. Counset for the petitioner: SRI BETHT VENKATESWARLU counser for the Respondents: sRr L.RAtiN;in,ie p FoR REVENUE The Court made the foilowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 6338 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel lor the pgtitioner and Mr. L. Ravindar, leimed Assistant Govemment Plcader fbr Revenue appearing on behalf (-)l' the respondcnts.

2. 'the petitioner herein is claimirlg that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the building bcaring Plot No.220, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.l 16 to llp and 136 to 143, situated at Puppataguda Vitlage within Manikonda Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. on the strcngth ofl a registered sale deed bearing document No.l0212 of 2022, dated 24.08.2022. He has also obtained building permit order dated 30.10.2023 issued by the Manikonda Municipality. FIe is in possession of th$ said propcrty. Iil of the ,proof same, he has llted copies of the aforesaid sale deed, link documents, tayout, buitding permit order and munipipal building permit order and also electricity payment bill.

3. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 23.01 .2025 alleging that the petitioner occupied the land admeasuring 200 square 1'ards ln Sun'ey No.146, situated at --li z KI J w P No 26318 of2025 \ Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal ancL procccding with construction illegally. Thercfore, seven (07) days timc rvas granlcd to the petitioner to submit cxplanation. IIe has suhnritted explanation on

29.01 .2025 . However. respondent No.4 vide procccdings dated

22.08.2025 directed the petitioncr to vacate from th,: sub.ioct property. Challenging the said order, the peritioner herein tiled thc present writ pctition.

4. As discussed abovc. respondent No.4 has issued notice dated

23.01.2025 under Scction - 7 of the Land Encroachrnenr Acr III of 1905. 'fhe petitioner has submittcd explanation on 29.01.2025. It is the specific contention of leamcd counsel fbr the prxi.ioncr that in the impugned order datcd 22.08.2025, there is no considr:rdtion of the said explanation submitted bv thc petirioner dated 29.012025 and F-Line application dated 30.01.2025 submined by him se,:king survcy of the aloresaid property. Perusal of' the explanation dated .19.01 .2025 would disclose that the petitioner has not stated about sun,e1, of the sub.ject properly. He has submitted thc said F-Line application on the next day i.e., 30.01.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the vievr that thc impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by respondent No.4 is arr appcalable order KL.J w P No l6llE oa2o25 in terms of Section - 10 of the Land Encroachment Act III of 1905' and the petitioner has to prefer an appeal belqre Appellate Authority'

5. There is no disputc with regar( to the legal position that despite availability of altemative remedy, stilt the prescnt writ petition is maintainable under the following three circumstances as hcld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst. Cqmmissioner of State Tax v' Commercial Steel Limitedr and also Whirlpool Corporation v' Registrar of Trade Marks. M umbai:' l. ii. i ii. A brcach of fundamental rights: A violation of the principlm of natural justice: An excess ofjurisdiction; or a challengc to the vlres of the statute or delegated legislafion. The petitioner herein lailed to makc out anly of thc aforesaid circumstances to maintain present writ petition'

6. Therefbre, this writ petition is disposed of grantlng liberty to I the petitioner to pret'er an appeal wifhin two (02) weeks fiom today challenging the order dated 22.08-202 5 ol respondent No'4 before the Appeltate Authority in terms of Scctiqn - 10 of the l'and Encroachment Act III of 1905, and also an applicatipn to stay all lurther proceedings pursuant to the said impugned order datcd 22 '08 '2025 ' and the Appellate ' . l2ozz1 t6 scc +tl '. (1998) 8 scc I 1 -/..- 4 KL.J w P No 261]8 of202i Authoritl' shall dispose of the said stay petition within tu,o (02) weeks and the appeal within three (03) months from thr: tlate ol'filing rhc said appeal considering the aforcsaid registered d()clrments ctc. Il' the petitioner f'ails to prefer the appeal within the aforet aid timelines, liberty is granted to respondent No.4 to take steps pursrra lt to the order dated

22.08.2025. ln the circumstances of the case, thcrc shall bc no order as to costs. As a scquel thereto, miscellaneous pctitions. it'any. pending in the u rit petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// . REKHA RANI T REGISTRAR SD/.B tlsrsrAN \ '\t-- -- SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, TS Secret,arLl at Hyderabad, T.G, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Office,at Kongarakalan lbrahimparnam Ranga Reddy Dist , TG The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gandipet Revenuo t)ivision, Gandipet. Ranga Reddy District, T.G The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District, T.G One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocata [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the titate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies PS s HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER WP.No.26338 of 2025 CC TODAY l<.t\ ( =::::::\_ --li r::'l_,r: -:- -..!\ !, j.- i\- i a- - (,J .'v. ,...\ ',-....i i - rt q 1 P 7!75 i.,. ,i * -. {,::-. .\.,.-' ,<}. 1 . , .t '. ,'' ,' . '- ... DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \@L