High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lMia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction, or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the order dated 6th June,2O22, in CASE NO. 2121202'l lA3-PTs passed by the Respondent No.2 District Collector herein, dismissing the appeal filed under section 121 ol the Panchayat Raj Act, by confirming the order passed by the Respondent No.3, rejecting the application filed seeking permission to construct the building in and over the property assigned to the petitioner herein i.e., plot admeasuring 1O0 Sq Yards, comprised in Survey No. 513, of Muthangi Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, vide Lr. No. 184/GPM|2O2O, dated 21st September 2O2O, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, against the Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 'lg, 21 and Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direc{ the Respondent No.3, to grant permission as sought for. lA NO: 2 OF 2A23 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to produce the record before this Honourable court in relation to the alleged resumption of land/plot admeasuring 100 Sq yards, comprised in Survey No. 513, of Muthangi Viltage, patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, for befter adjudication of the issue involved' in this writ petition, pending disposal o1' the Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition underr 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 3rd Res6rondent to consider the application filed seeking issuance of building permission to the Petitioner herein in respect of plot admlasuring 100 Sq Yards, comprised in Survey No. 513, of Muthangi Village, pataniheru Mandal, sanga Reridy District by notwithstanding the impugned orcier, penciing disposal of the \4rrit Pet;ticn. Counse[ for the Petitioner: SRl. G ANANDAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T' MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITIO N NO.31149 OF 2023 ORDE R ln this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt.06.06.2022 in Case No'2l2l202l]A3-PTS passed by the 2nd rcspouclcnr- dismissing the anpcal filsd by the petitionel ttnder Seciion 121 ol the Panchayat l(aj A'ct' by confirming the order dt'21'09'2020 passed by the 3'd re:';llondcnt rejecting the application filed b'v- the ijetitiolter for permission to construct a building in and o'zer the prooeft-v li.;silltic'J ttr the p':iitic'l'icr hci'eiu' i'e '' plct aclmeasu-iing 100 squrui: l ariis rii Srrr.icy Nc.5li '-:l ivluthangi Villirgr:' Pamnchen' l'4andal' SarigarctlCy l)istrict, uiy'e t.r-No'13 4rcPWzAZO C't"21'Og'2020' as itlega!' arbitraly' urtcon::titutional alid ill violaticil s'f ;:iinoiples cf natural justire and cons!,(lrrcni l-r to ciirrr:: thc 3'd ;'esi-'oilj'')tit to glant pennissien as scughi Iari 2 tlt:ii ftriel'facts lcaCi:rg to ti-:e fiting cl'the preseiri Writ Petitior' are ilrc petitioner ciaitns to be a lardless poor ancl thcic lorc, ttrc Covclnnteltt of Arldhra PL:riesh' has allotted a rcs.iclential ;;1ot e lil aiii-,rca:'uring 100 scluare yards in SLlrvey No'513 of Mrrthangi Viitag I ) lV.P.No.i l t49 of 2023 2 the year lggg to the petitioner to e,abie him to construct a smalr house and vide proceedings No.B/13 I 3/1998, permission was gralted to construct a house' It is submitted that the petitioner constructed a house over the said assigned land and the Gram panchayat. Muthangi has assessed the said property and allotted the housc number as 6-99 vide order dt'30'07 '2004' rt is stated that the Mandar Revenue officer thereafter conducted a survey of Survey No.5l3 and fixed boundaries and ther.eafter issued tonch map with specific boundaries as dcscribed in the tonch map schedure' Therearter, trre petitioner demorished the smarl hut with an intention to construct small rooms and therefore, he applied for grant of building pennission on 17.06.20 I3 for permission to construct a residential house. I Iow ever, the Gram panchayat did not grant permission and therefore, the petitioner madc a complaint to the District Panchayat Officer and when the samc was also not considered, he filed W.p.No.9t3l of 20t5 which was disposed of by order dt.24.02.2015 to consider the applicarion filed for grant of permission. Thereafter' the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi addressed a refter to the Mandal Revenue officer to submit a report as to the existence of the road or covered undcr the road widening. However, the said request was not acted upon and thcrefore, the petitioner filed w.p.No.i2:55 of 20lg ( I ;i I 1*. t W.P.No.l I 149 of 2023 3 seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to send the report as requested by the Panchayat Secretary so as to enable the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi to grant permission as sought for. Vide orders dt.12.03.2029, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 'l ahsildar to give clarification as sought for by the 5th respondent so as to enable the Grarn Panchayat to consider the reirresentation of the petitioner tbr' constmction of a bLrilding. It is stated that the 4th iesponr.lent Tahsildar has subrnittcd his report vrde Lr.No.B/900/2020 dt.03.09.2020 stating that the land was resumed by the Govemment for the allegeci violations and thcre i:; no land in existence and the same is coverei under extension of National l-Iighway No.9..C,cntendirrg tL:at the iand ol;he oetiticncr was ncve:' resuncd by the Govem,i:icnt, the petiticrrer demanded the althoritics to furnish the record relating to the said resuruptio:r of the site. but the authorities fai-led to do so and thereiole, the petitioner maile a l'epresentatiou dt.28.lO.2O2O to '.he 4tr' respcndent to lumish the infcrmation/Cocuments in relation to the cancellation of assignment granted in favcrr of the petitionet under the Riglrt to lnforma.ticn Act. [n ic:iponse tlrereio, vide Lr:No.Bl1163/202i) dt.04.i1.2020, the Tahsildar gave a reply that no ploceedings.are avaiiahle in the ofhce. -l-hercafter, tire 3'd respondent herein issued )t, ) W.P.No.3l149 of 202i 4 proceedings dt.21.09.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of permission for constmction of house. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No, 1 8443 of 2021 challeuging the order of rejcction passeci by the 3'd respondent and this court disposed of the said writ petition vde order dt.10.08.2021 with a directio, to the petitioner to file an appeal under Sectio, 121 of the panchayat Raj Act before the appellate authority assailing the order of rejection passed by the 3'd respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner pieferred an appeal belore the 2nd respondent who dismissed the appeal vide order dt.06.06.2022 and challenging the same, the present Writ petition has becn llle d.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions rnade in the writ affidavit and submitted that the respondents have not shown any documents whatsoever about the resumption of the tand of the petitioner and cancellation of the assignment of the petitioner and therefore, the orders orthe respondents are illegal and unsustainable. 4' The 4s respondent has filed a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit confirming that the petitioner was ailotted an extent of 100 square yards ofland in Survey No.5l3 oflvluthangi Viltage and that I W.P.No.3l 149 of 2023 5 the writ petitioner has started construction of 3 shops instead of constructing a residential house in the allotted site and thus violating the conditions laiC down in patta certificate, i.e., it is tbr a residential unit and therefore, a letter was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy to take necessal] action in the matter vide Lr.No.Bl492/2003 dt.28.07.2005 and based on this report, the Revenue f-: Divisional oificer, Sangareddy has also t'orrrvarded the same to the Distlict Coltcctoi vde Lr.No.Cll2O75l20C5 and ihus' the house site patta certificate issued in favottr oI the rvrit petitioner rva.s cancelled by the. then District Collector, Sangareddy vide pro":eecirngs No.E1/2806/20A2 dt.04.04.2006 and it rvas also ditected to resume the same and take it into Govcrrllrrertt ctrsti)dy. It is stated that tire lanil ..vas accordil:-gl;. rcsttrlied and the sai<J lani v;as acqrtired for forn:ation of hying tire road of National l{ighrvay l'lc 9 i,nd the snbject land. r"'as nct lotified under the Land Acquisitiorr Acr as it is a Gr-rvcrnment land. It is sr"ateci tlrat the .writ petitioner, with au ulterior motive and lrralafide intention to grab the Govenlnerit l:nd. has started Construction abUtting to his aliotted lrouse site arrd he is cliiit:,ing the sarne to be i:ii orvn picpcr;-y. It is :tated that the petitio;r-cr rvas directed to 'subra''t any . docr:iir:rtts .:f ilte land i1 his occup:.ticn atrd io ;top tfte illegal I ,., .\ W.P.No.3l 149 of 2023 encroachm€nt and construction work takcn 'p in the, Govemment rancr in Survey lrlo.513, and FIR No.249/2005 .wasalso filed against him. It is stated that the petitioner has not replied to the notice issued by the respondents and instead, has submitted a representation dt.12.06.2006 requesting to .evoke the canceilation orders or the 2nd respon dent vide proceedings No.E112806/2002 dt-04.04.2006. It is srated rhat lhe matter was enquired into and it was revcaled that the petitioner is not residing in Muthangi or Isnapur villages a,d that he is residing in Mehdipatnanr with his family members and that he is not having raticn card ancl photo identity card and that hc is also having immovable properties ar Muthangi and Isnapur and therefore, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a landless poor and thcreforc, he is not eligible for allotment of land and his case was considered lor revocation of cancellation of the house patta as his annuar income rvas more than Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, the 4,h respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Along with the additional counrer affidavit, the procecdings of . the District coilector dr.04.04.2026 cancelling the house site patta issued to Sri Nazeeruddin, i.e., the petitioner herein, the copy of the panchanama dt. 10.04.2006 and the report of the Mandal Revenue Offrcer dt.Zg.O|.2025 are enclosed,- Il W.P.No.3l 149 ol202l 7

5. The petitioner had filed a reply/rejoinder affidavit to the counter tiled by the 4fr respondent denying the averments made in the additional counter affidavit. He submitted that all of these documents were never supplied to the petitioner in spite of his specific request under the Right to Information Act and therefore, they cannot be relied upon. He therefore prayed to set aside the imougned order and to direct the respondents to grant permission for construction to the petitioner in the subject land.

6. I'Iaving regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the undisputcd iact as admitted rr! the counter a.ifiCavit ol respondent No.4 IS that the pctitioncr r.vas allotted 100 souare 1.'arcis of land in Survey No.5 i3 of Mutirangi Villagc for constiuction of a residentia! house ir'. the year 1998. The allegation that thc petiticner constructed comincrcia! :;hcps instead cl:'csidentiai tinits and has occupieC tire Go.zenment lerd abutting his allbtted stte, \\ras also taken by tl-re respondents irr the eounter filed in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.l8623 o12003 iiled bv the petitionel as observed by lhis Court in its order dt.29.01.200/+. It is als,.; stated in the ccunter r-ffidavit tl-rat the land abutiing i() tiie i)etitioirer's o;:ouelt-v was aiready ) ) t E W.P.No.l ll49 of 202i 8 sold in public auction in G.O.Ms.No.730 dt.21.09.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.293 dt.31.05.2002 to one Sri pothireddygari Ramr.ecldy. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.ll4 of 2005 ir the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for perpetual injunction in respect of his allotted plot and the sarne was disrnissed with the obscn'ation that the petitioner has violated the clirections of the High Court u,irile disposing of the Writ petition that the ptainiitf should not encroach into rhe Govcmment land and that he should confine to his extent ol 100 square yards which was allotted to him and that the plainti[Tcould not discharge the burden cast upon him to seck perpetual injunction against the defendants therein and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. tt is noticed that the appcal and the second appeal against the order of the principal Junior Civit Judge, Sangareddy have also been dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed w.P-No.16718 of 2005 not to interfere with the construction of residential house by the petitioner on the 100 square yards in Survey No.5 l3 and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, through Iris olfice Lr.No.Bl492l2003 dt.28.07.2005, has stated rhar rhe land to an extent of 100 square yards in Survey No.513, i.e., the Govemment land, has been allotted to the petitioner herein vide patta certificate I W.P.No.3l 149 o12023 9 No.B/1313/98 dt. .12.1998 for construction of residential house and that the petitioner has violated the conditions laid down in the final patta certificate and has constructed three (3) shops in his allotted land and that the petitioner has no right to occupy the neighbouring land of one Sri Pothireddygari Ramreddy who purchased the same in public auction for Rs.23,62,500/- and the sale amount was also remitted into the Government Treasury. This Court finds that the petitioner has approached this court on earlier occasion, but the details olall the cases have not been mentioned in the writ affidavit. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is having cer.tain immovable ploperties in Muthangi and Isnapur and that he is also getting a monthly rent of Rs.4,8001 from the shops and the residential building existing at Isnapur X roads and therefore,, he is not eligible for house site patta' In the reply affidavit frled to the counter allidavit, the petitioner has denied the allegations of the 4th respondent and has taken a ground that there was no resumption of his site and no notice was ever placed or any proceedings issued to the petitioner regarding cancellation ol house site patta which was granted. Therefore' this Court had directed the respondents to file the relevant documents and the said documents are filed along with the additional counter affidavit. The petitioner in the ) 1 \ W.P.No..l I I49 of 2021 10 reply filed to the additional counter affidavit has denied the avennents in the counter affidavit but he has not specifically denied that he has made a request for revocation of the cancellation order dt.04.04.2006. It clearly shows that the petitioner was aware of the cancellation order though the cancellation order does not refer to any notice issued to the petitioner plior to such cancellation. However, there is no challenge to the cancellatiorr order d1.04.04.2006. The allegation in the additional counter affidavit that the petitioner has not constructed a residential house, but has constructed three (3) shops which were subsequently directed to be rr.moved, is not denied by the petitioner. No evidence is placed by thc peritioner to the contrary. It is also not denied that the petitioner is havi:tg an annual income of more than Rs_24,000/- and therefore, he is not entitled for house site patta. In spite of the relevant documents being liled along with the additional counter affidavit, the petitioner has nr.rt chosen to challenge the cancellation of the house site patta issued to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court under r\rticle 116 of the Clonstitulion ol India carLnot interfere in the matter at this stase. In these circumsli*ccs, this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, libert.. is gr.anted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if he is so advised W.P,No.l I 149 ol2023 l1

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE GOPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I

1. One CC to SRl. G ANANDAM, Advocate' I 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High C,ourt for the State of Telangana at , Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. One SPare CoPY- 4. Two CD CoPies. CYS/BSK w HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 ORDER WP.No.31149 of 2023 \ HE S 14 oP. k + ,J 2 6 JUil ZrG (( (' z .nrcH r-D DISMISSING IfF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 *laIr{ t