M/s Vinayak lndustries v. District

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 direct the respondent No. 4 to grant police protection to the petitioner to prgceed with his work as perthe orders dt. 24.102024 passed in WP No. 2764Oof 2024, pending disposal of main writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024: Between: Mr. Mahmood Ali, S/o Md Ameen, Aged about 61 years, R/o Thoompally village And cram Panchayat, chowderguda Mandal, *"lg?5ri9,$r"PffiHl"ji,o*o.r,,uo. u AND Ransa Reddy District Rep. by its Proprietor, tt/lr Ritu *11 1 . M/s Vinayak lndustries, # Sy No. 15, Thoompally Village, Kondurg Mandal, A,P3#fltrNr/pE,,oNER 2. fhe State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Grbm Panchayat Secretary, Vannanipalli, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Mandal Reveriue Officer, Chowdarguda Mandal, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. rhe Station House officer, chowdarisuda ""1,.:_..:l%,ff8.SI3,R##^B,Elllt, ,o o Petitiqn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plqased tq vaqate the interim order dated 24.10.2024 passed in the above WP No. 27640 of 2024 consequently dismiss- the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B. VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI P. KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for Respondent No. 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI K. BUCHI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI ORDERT IV.P.NO. 27640 0F 2024 In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated

24.O9.2024 and in not removing the iilegal encroachment and digging made by the respondent No.5 on the 40 feet existing gram panchayat road, thereby blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner industry in Survey No.15, Thoompalli Viilage, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the official respondcnts to remove the illegal encroachments made by the respondcnt No.5 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of ju stice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are Lhat the petitioner industry is engaged in the business of manufacturing of packaging products and had purchased the land Ac.2.39 guntas in Survey No. 15 along with 8,600 sft., of tin shed and 2,00O sft., of RCC constructed area, situated at Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg. Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from thc earlier industry i.e., GN 2 Packaging under a registered sale deed bearing document No.17401 ol 2Ot8, dated 10.09.2018. Subsequenrly, the petitioner claims to have obtained all necessary permissions for manufacturing of packaging products and has been successfully running its operations without any hindrances. It is submitted that the respondent No.S, the neighbor of the petitioner and owner of the adjacent land in Survey No.75 of Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, has illegally blocked the ingress and egress to, the factory of the petitioner by encroaching the 12.19 (4o)Mtrs., public road and has commenced the consLrucLion activities without obtaining any permissions lrom the respondent No.2 department. It is submitted that ersrwhile industry M/s.GN Packaging had obtained approval of factory plans from the respondent No.2 on 26.03.200Z and the respondent No.2 had inspected the land and has observed that it had 40 leet existing road and was away from the river, lake, nala to a distance of 30 meters and there were no residential colonies, no educational/ medical/religious institutions near to the Survey No_ 15 and a certihcate to that extent was issued in favour of the earlier industry enclosing the location skelch. It is submitted that vendor of the petitioner also obtained a DTCp approval clearly 3 showing that there exists 40 feet wide road towards eastern slde of Survey No.15 and after purchase of the property, the petitioner has obtained mutation proceedings from respondent' No.2 on 17 .ll.2)lB and has also obtained the location sketch from TS-iPass on 22 .O'2.2020 wherein it is clearly shown that on the eastern side of Survey No.15, there exists 4O feet wide road' The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated

24.Og.2O24 to the authorities to stop the illegal digging and construction by the respondent No.5, but since no action has been initiated by the official respondents, the present writ petition has bcen filcd.

3. This Court vide order dated 24'IO 2024 after considering the counter atfidavit Iiled by the respondent No'2 and the documents iiled by the petitioner along with reply to the counter affidavit, observed that there was a road from Vanampally to Thoompalli from the main road abutting Survey No.76 and further that the petitioner cannot be denied the facility of ingress and egress from his property' more particularly when there is a main road to Thoompally Village via Vanampally Village. Therefore, this Court had directed the petitioner to close the pits atlegedly dug by the respondent No 5 and use the same for ingress and egress until further orders of 4 this Court and that the said interim order is subject to restoration of the said possession to respondent No.5 if it is found that the respondent No.5 had the right over the said Property and there was permrssion for him to make construction over the said Property. Thereafter, vide orders dated O6.11.2024, the Mandal Revenue Officer was also directed to file counter affidavit with regard to the existence of lhe road adjacent to the property of the petitioner in Survey No.15 and the respondent No.5 was directed not to obstruct the ingress and egress of the petitioner to and from his property.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter afhdavit stating that the petrtioner had attributed ail false allegations in the writ aflldavit. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a representation against respondent No.5 in the year 2022 to the Distnct Collector, Ranga Reddy, who directed the Jilied Chowdarygudem Mandal Tahsildar to conduct a survey in the presence of Grarn Panchayat officials and accordingly, the .fahsildar conducted the survey and has declared that the alleged road is not exrsting as per the official Nakshabata of the village and submitted the same to the District Collector vicle letter No.B/687 /2022, dated OS.O}.2O22 and submitred the coples to 40 feet 5 the petitioner and respondent No.5. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent No.2 for permission to construc[ a building and submitted the naia copy .obtained by him and after verilying the nala permission, the respondent No.2 issue d the construction permission vide No.101/BP/2023, dated 21.O1.2023 and that the respondent No.2 was also present at the time of the said survey and panchanama conducted in the year 2022, in which it was clearly established that the alleged 40 feet wide road was not existing in the Nakshaba[a and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Along with the counter affidavit, he has enclosed the copy of thc reports dated 13.O5.2022 and

05.o9.2022.

5. Learned counsel for Lhe peLitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the above counter alfidavit conhrming that he has submitted a. representation in the year 2022 to the District Collector when the respondent No.5 had tried to encroach the road and that the Tahsildar has demolished the illegal construction of the respondent No.5 and further that the petitioner was not pul on any notice before conducting the survey and that the survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner reserves his right to 6 challenge the said survey report dated 16.08.2022 and that the same is contrary to the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor on 08.O5.2005, according to which there exists a 40 feet approach road towards petitioner,s factory lrom pargi to . Shadnagar main road. He placed reliance upon thc sketch map prepared by the Mandar surveyor in the year 2005. Therefore, according to him, the survey report dated 16.0g .2022 is incorrect and contrary to the earlier records and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that even according to the proceedings of the Tahsildar Chowdergudem, dated 13.O5.2022, there exists a 40 feet road which is being used by the petiLioncr to access his factory main gate. As regards the construction permission allegedly granted to the respondent No.5 by respondent No.2, it is stated that the said permission is illegal wi[hout perusing the records of the respondent No.2 and therefore, it is liabie to be set aside.. It is stated that by encroachment of the road by the respondent No.S, the petitioner is not able to carry on the business operations of the fac[ory due to the blockage of ingress and egress to the factory premises.

6. Learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.3 has hled a counter affidavit statlng that the respondent No.5 is the owner of the land in Survev No.76 of l.l 7 Vanampally Viliage and not Survey No 75 as mentioned by the petitioner and as per the village map' there is a cart track from Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village' but the same is not connected to Survey.No.15 of rhoompa,y Vilrage and continues to Survey No 14 of Thoompally Vitlage Therefore' it is stated that [here is no cart track connecting to Survey No 15 of Thoompally Village from Survey No 76 of Vanampally Village' which pertains to respondent No 5 as alleged by the petitioner herein and that the petitioner industry appears to be using the Iand of resPondent No.5 as aPProach road rvith mutual understanding and due to differences that have arisen between them subsequently, the respondent No 5 appears to have closed the approach road from patta land and that the official respondents are not concerned with the same ll is also denied that there is a 40 feet wide road towards the eastern side of Survey No.75 and that the respondent No'5 has obtained nala permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer' Mahaboobnagar Division, vide Proceedings No'K/331 512OO8' dated 04 OB'2O08' foranextentofAc.l.2lguntasinSurveyNo.T6ofVanampally Viliage and constructed a weigh bridge and therefore' the ofliciai respondents cannot stop any constructions which have been constructed duly obtaining pcrmissions from the concerned / a Gram Panchayat. Thus, it is prayed that the wrrt petition be dismissed. Enclosed thereto is the location sketch showing the car track adjacent to Survey No.76 and Survey No.14.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has also filcd a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition i.c., I A' No.2 of 2024, stating that the petitioner has not riled any documents along with the writ petition in proof of the existence of the road leading to his factory premises. It is submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner is purely civir in nature and this Court should not entertain the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 along with the photographs to show that the efforts of thc petitioner to fi.ll the pits and use the road as per the interim direction of this Court have been obstructed by the familt. members of the respondent No.5 and thereby committecr con tempt of the order of this Court. 9 . Having regard to the rival conten tions and the material on record, this Court finds that the schedule of the property in registered sale deed executed in favour of the 9 petrtroner mentions road on the western side of the subject property and land in Survey No.15/p on the eastern side and the location sketch and certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat also show a road on the western side of the petitioner's property. The Location Skctch is signed by the Mandal Surveyor of Kondurg Mandal. Thus, the petitioner is claiming that there is a cart track between Survey No.75 of Vanampally village and Survey No. 15 of Thoompally village. However, it is noticed that respondent No.5 is the owner of land in Survey No.76 and not Survey No.75, the official respondents have denied the existence of the road and it is stated that the peLitioner was using the private property of the respondent No.5 as an approach road to his factory duc to an unders[anding between them and that there is no 40 feet road existing as per the village maps. This Court finds that in the year 2022, as per the enquiry report dated 13.O5.2022 submitted by the Tahsildar, Jilled Chowdarygudem to the District Collecror, Ranga Reddy District, there existed a 4O feet road which leads from Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village via Survey No.14/2 of Thoompally Village to the factory gate in Survey No. 15, w.hich is being used by the factory of Vinayaka Industries, but that the road is in Survey No.l4l2 which is assigned to Sri Mahmood, .// 10 S/o.Ameen Sab. It is further stated that as per viliage map, there is. no road depicted in the disputed site. The petitioner is disputing the said report on the ground that it wa s behind the back of the petitioner. Further, from the building permission granted to respondent No.5, it is noticed that the western boundary of Sur-vcy No.76 is mentioned as ,.Bandlabata,,, givcs credence lo the contentions of the petitioner about tht: existence of the road. Even the counter of the respondent No.3 refers to a cart track in Survey No.76 which ended up to Survey No.14 w.hich is Government land. However, it is noticed thar Survey No. 14 is on the western side of Survey No.15 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner about the existence of cart track is not baseless. Even from the plan annexed to the building permission granted to respondent No.5, there is a cart track on the western side of his land. However, all of these are dispute questions of fact and cannot be decided in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner therefore would have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 'flrA writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remcdy and till such time, the cart track leading from Survey No.76 to survey No. 14 as admitted and conrrrmed l1 by the respondent No.3 as approach road to the petitioner's industry shall not be obstructed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs I 1. Miscellaneous petitions, it any, pending in this rvrit petition including I.A.No.2 of 2024, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/.K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J 4 5 6 7 8 o

6. 1 t\,lBC . Two C . TwoC . OneC . OneC 0.Two C The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Rajand Rural Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Gram Panchayat Secretary, Vannampalli, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy _District. The Mandal Reveriue Officer, Chowdarguda Mandal, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. The Station House Officer, Chowdariguda Police Station, Cyberabad District. One CC to Sri B Vamshidhar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Cs to GP For Rev6nue ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Cs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] C to Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate (OPUC) C to Sri P. Kishore Rao, Advocate (OPUC) D Copies I HIGH COU l RT I DATED: 2210412025 1 e ATS oA ( \ t z C).\ ^+ 3 0 I A R 2t]25 t P t o(: ... ORDER WP.No.27640 of 2024 A $' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS