Smt. Naga tvlanjari Madiraju v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of 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-ordinates in interfering and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 273, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at, GoMhami Nagar, Edulanagualapally Village, Ramachandrapuram lt/andal, Sangareddy District and threatening to dlspossess the petitioner from his plot, without issuing any notice or without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary, violative or Artlcles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and I consequently direct the respondent No.S and his sub-ordir ltes not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his plot lJ t.273, admeasuring 500 square yards, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated rt Gowthami Nagar, Edulanagulapally village, Ramchandrapuram lr/andal, Sangar rddy District. without following due process of law and without issuing any notice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 'r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:1 be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 and fris srtr6l-ordinates not to interfere rv th the possession of the petitioner in respect of his Plot No. 273, admeasuring 50C square yards, Block A, in Sy. No. 135 part, situated at Gowthami Nagar, Edul nagulapatly Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, without fol r wing 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! ANTHI, AGP FOR RE'V =NUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AC,t ItNtSTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENI' Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA RE DDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIE,: The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3437O of 2O2l TIIE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 Between: Smt. Naga Maljari Madiraju AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, BRK Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Five others. ORDER: ...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 Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for the respondents. Perused the materia-l 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 u,ith and demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner 1n respect of petitioner's Plot No.273, Block A, in Sy.No.l35 part, situated at Gor.,,thami Nagar, Edulanagu:i apa-lly Vi1lage, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy Distric: (for brevity, "the subject property") and threateniirg to disposses; the petitioner from his plot, u,ithout issuing aly notice anC ..r rthout following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthr: submits that, while admitting the matter, this Court passed inlt rim order dated

16.12.2027 directing the official respondents not o interlere with the petitioner's possession over the subject pro rerty, except in accordance rvith the procedure established by lzL v. However, in spite of lapse of more than four years, the respon lent authorities have not filed counter or vacate petition for denyiit 1 the averments made by the petitioner in the writ aff-rdavit. In r.i :w of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow th€ il/rit Petition by directing the respondent authorities not to int:rfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject p operty without a following due process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Gov: .nment pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioner is in p< ssession of the subject property, the respondents wili not inl ( rfere 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 stand ciosed. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY S STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Special Chief Secretary to GoVt, The State.of Telangana, ReVenUe Deir;i;;;i, EC( Bilr;"' t.S' Secretariat' Hvderabad'

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt' The State of Telangana' CX MA and UD - Oepartment,T.S. Secr6tariat, Hyderabad' I

3. The District Collector, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy' 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 5.TheTahsildar,RamchandrapuramMandalsangareddyDistrict. 6. The commissioner, Tellapur Municipality,Tellapur, sangareddy District' 7. One CC to Sri Eslavath Raju, Advocate [OPUC] B.TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana,at g Two CC to The GP tor IMunicipal Administration Urban Development' High " c'dJritir'ihe b-tate of relanqana, at Hyderaba.dlotITI 10. one cc to sri putta xri"sin"a i;d;y; 5c i"aMrhicipalitiesloPucDl 11.Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 ORDER WP.No.34370 ot 2021 : .: :s_ - r,ra:\. lHE: orJ 0 E r1 * ]P,,\ i\ .i' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION l WITHOUT COSTS r< \.)- ,:. . . f .:;tt,i..