Smt. Venoala Anasurya v. 1. 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 a writ, order or Direct'ron more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the aotbn of the respondents particularly respondents 4 to 6 in demolishing the itlegal constructions made by the unofficial respondents 7 to 10 in the petitioners house property situated in Sy No. 2lA1 to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts of Akenapalli Village limits of Peddanapalli, Kasipeta Mandalam, Manchiry al District by considering the reprr:sentation dated zs.o4.2o24of the petitioner, but not demorishing the same by':he respondents 4 to 6 is illegal, arbitrzrry and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 14' 19' 21and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 4 to 6 to demolish / stop the illegal conr;tructions made by the unofficial respondents 7 to 1 0 in the petitioner land ' t'y considering the representation daled 25 04 '2024 of the petitioner' in the interer;t of justice IA NO 10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Direct the responderrts 2 to 6 to demolish / stop the illegal corrstructions made by the unofficial respor dents 7 to 1 0 in the Petitioners property bearing situated in Sy No. 2tA1 lo an extent of Ac 0 30 gts of Akenapalli Village limits of Peddanapalli, Kasireta Mandalam' trilanchiryal District t'y considering the representation/ complaint dated 25 04 2024 of the petitioner' pending disposal of the main writ Petitio'r Counsel for the Pel:itioner: SRI' PENUBALLI RAMESH BABTJ GounseIrortheRespondentNos"'''*l^3t*[RXISifXf iAI=-t Counsel for the R')spondent Nos' 3&5: AGP FOR REVENUE counser f or the R esponde nt No'6 : s Rr *' "1I\lr'si 3Fflislft EDH?Yit the Respondent Nos' 7to10:SRl MEDI KONDA KONDALA RAO Counsel for The Court made tlte following: ORDER r, i I I I 1j THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DE\II ORDER: W.P.NO. 3,o,o20 0F 2024 In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in demolishing the illega-l constructions raised by the unofficial respondcnts No.7 to 1O in the petitioner's house property situated in Suruey No.2/A1 to an extent of Ac.O.30 gts., ol Akenapalh i,illage limits of Peddanapalii, Kasipeta Mandalam, Manchiryal District, by considering the representation oi the petitioner dated 25.04.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents No.4 to 6 to denr<.rlish/stop the illegal construction being made by the unof[rcial respondents and to pass such other order or orders in the interest o[ justice.

2. Bricl lzrcts lezrding to the fiIing of the present writ pe tition ar(' th.r t rhc petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural Land eind that she has a house property constructed in Survcy No.2/A I to an extent of Ac.O.30 gts., of Akenapalii village limits o[ Peddanapalli, Kasipeta Mandalam, Manchiryal District. It is sLlbmitLed that thc petitioner is cultivating the said Iand and her narne is also reflccted in the Dharani portal. It is "q 2 SubmittedttrattheunoflicialrespondentsNo.Ttol0have iilegally trespassed into the pctitioner's land and are illegally constructing the shed in her land without having any right or title. The petitioner submitted that the respondents No'7 to 10 have used physical force and have forcefullv and illega1ly encroached into the petitioner's land and are making construction. Therefore, the petitioner made a reprr:sentaLion on 25.04.2024 lo the respondents No 2 to 6 to takc action against the illegal construction being madc in his lancl' but since no action has been taken thereon' the pctitioner -ras filed the present writ petition. The copv of lhe represent'tion of the petitioner is also hled along u'ith the \t'ri[ petition'

3. Learned counsel for the pctitioner s'rbmitted that from the p.eotographs hled along u'ith the u'rit petition' it is clearthatthereisanopenspacebctrveentlLcpetitioner,s property ar'd another propert\ atrtl tlu'rt rrcre pillars raised in the said aroa. The Tahsilclar had submit tcri u'ritte n instrucLions stating tha: on veriflcation o[ thc ofllce records' it was revealed car lt)ct6 97 ' the petitioner was that as per the pahani for thc No 2i 1 to an recorded at; Lavuni pattadar lor the lancl in Surve 'v extent of 7lt Cents and her name is also recordcd in the Dharani portS) and further, that the n'rit pctitioner has sold 2 guntas of t-/ " 3 land to one Erukala Lingaswami, S/o.R4jaiah, through sadabainama and that the saicl land is a house site and the petitioner was not in possession of the land.

4. Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent No.4, has also filcd a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not given any representation to the respondent No.4, but a representation was given to the respondent No.6 as well as the respondent No.2 artd that the unofhcial respondents No.7 to lO have purchased the lald from the persons to whom the petitioner has sold the land through sadabainama and have started construction of sheds/ houses_ [,lou,cver, zrs rc,gards the permissions granted to the unofficial respondents, rherc is no reference in the counter.

5. Learned Sranding Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, submitrcd thar the petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour ol one l:]rukala Lingaswami, who inturn executed sale deeds in lavour of the respondents No.7 and g and respondent No.9 is ttrc son of respondents No.7 and g. It is further submitted that the icspondents No.7 to 9 have qonstructed hous.s upo. thc saicl lands. It is further subrnitted \ that as per rhe dircctions.f thc ci.vernment to accord house 4 \ numbers to the structures within the limits ol Gramakantam, the Gram Pzmchayat has accorded house numbers to the house of the unofficial respondents in the year 2O2O itsell. Therefore, it is stated that the contentions of the writ petitioner are false and without any basis.

6. Having regard to the rival contentilns and Lhe material on record, this Court finds that thc petttioner appears to have exe,:uted an unregistered sale deed in flvour of onc Erukala Lingaswami, who inturn has aga n executed unregistered sale deeds in favour o[ the respondcnr s No.7 and g and they harre already made constructions in t hc subject land before the year 2O2O. Though it is nor sr:L[ ]d rhar Lhc construction has been made without pcrmission. lhc fact that the houses L.ave already been given house numbers also proves that the houses are existing for a long trme anci thc petitior-rer has not ob-jer:ted to the same till the _vear ZO21 . ll rhe petirioner is claiming title and ownership ol the propertv. r tc petrlioner has to approach the appropriate authoritv. The sarte cannot be entertained in this writ petition liled uncler Articl I 226 ol the Constitution of India. I i I I I I i I I ! i i i I I I I I j \ To 5 7 . Accordingly, the writ pe tition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. r \ S /.K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT]ON OFFICER 1 One CC to SRl. PENUBALLI RAI\iIESH BAB U, Advocate Coud for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad [OUT]

2. TwOCCStO GPFORPANCHA Vnr nal RURAL DEVEL6oJ#"J',*rn 3. TwoC Cs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. 6i';-aCUSRt.'h. cnnuonn sEKHAR REDDY, sc FoR GRAM s. brii, cC ii sni. l,uor KoNDA KoNDALA RAo' Advocate [oPUc] 6. Two CD CoPies PANCHAYAT [OPUC] Hvderabad [OUT] BM GJP I I i \ I i I I i I i I i I I HIGH COURT DATED:31 lOTli;025 0 7 0tT 2x5 - i.r.. \- ",)1 it'--. -<-'.---,^.-,2t" .-. t --,i' / ORDER WP.No.30020 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WlTrrlOUT COSTS +