Merugu Marudhwathi 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, Orders, Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the lmpugned lntimation Notice vide Roc.No.C2l122O120231831 , dated 6.9.2025 and rejected the online application vide TSB-Pass A. No.29831 8/BP IGP 12123210002132023. daled 5.7 .2023 and trying to demolish the function hall of the petitioner by colluding with the respordent ttos.6 anJ Z and canceled the c,rnstruction permission of the Petitioner rrr S7.No.323, which is situated at Panthini Village of lnavole Mandal, Hanumakonda i)istrict. after lapse of 2 years, 2 months and having the permissions from the con<;erned authorities, Nala Permission from the Revenue Authorities, N.O.C. fr,:m the lrrigation Authorities cancelle d the construction permission of the Petitroner by colludrng with the Responderrt No.6 and 7 is illegal, arbitrary and violatir e of provisions of Article 14. 15. 21 and Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of provisions of Natural Justice and set aside the lmpugned lntimation Notice vide Roc.No.C2112)0120231831, dated 6.9.2025, and consecuently direct the respondent No.4 to consider the online application vide TSEI-Pass A.No.2983'lB/ BPlGPl21232lO0O2l32O23. dated 5.7.2023 and not to demolisl the function hall of the petitioner by colluding with the respondent No.6 and 7 ;lnd not to cancel the construction permission of the Petitioner in Sy.No.323 which is situated at Panthini Village of lrravole Mandal, Hanumakonda District, after lapse of 2 years, 2 months and hav ng; the permissions from the concerned authorities, Nala Permission from the Revenue Authorities, N.O,C. from the lrri<tation Authorities cancelled the conslrLrction permission of the Petitioner by c,rlluding with the Respondent No.6 and 7. lA NO: 1 OF 2o2s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m.ay be pleased to suspend the operati,rn of the proceedings pursuant to the lmp.rgned lntimatton Notice vide Roc No.C2l'1220120231831, dated 6.9.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the online application vide TSB-Pass A No 298318/ 8PlGP12123210002132023, dated !\.7.2023 and not to demolish the function hall of the petitioner by colluding rvith the respondent No.6 and 7 and not to cancel the construction permission of lhe Petitioner in Sy.No.323, which is situated at Panthini Village of lrravole [Vtandal, Hanumakonda Distrct, after lapse of 2 years, 2 months and having the permissions from the concerned authorities, Nala Permissior from the Revenue Authorities, N.O.C. Irom the lnigation Authorities cancelled the construction permission of the Pet tioner by colluding with the Respondent No.6 & 7 lA NO:2 OF 2025 I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 to 5 not to interfere into the peaceful life and as well as property in respect of the function hall of the petitioner through authorized construction permission of the Petitioner in Sy No 323, which is situated at Panthini Village of l.navole Mandal, Hanumakonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 4: SRI MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAIG, SC FOR KUDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. ROOHI NABEELA, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER T'IIE I{ON0T]FIATILE, SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSI.]]'{ RI]DI)Y \^ I.:IT PETITION NO.30993 OF 2025 ORI)EII : (OI{AL t Heard Mr. l{apolu Bhaskar, leamed counsel lor the retitit,rrcr'. Mr. I\4irza Saitu lah Baig, leamed standing counsel fbr the Kakativa Urbarr Developlrent Authority (KUDA), appearing lirr r'tp,,,,.t.n, Nos.l and 4, NIs. Roohi Nabeela, leamed Assistant Goyernn rcnt Plearlrr lor l)rrn:l^avat Raj and Rural Development. i pprralirtg tirr respondent No.:, and Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, leal rccl stanclirrg counsL'l fbr Granr l)anchayats, appearing for responderrt No. i

2. When the rnatter is taken up for hearing, learnec starrcling counscl fbr respondent No.5 submitted that pursuant to ,he irlpuen.'d intirnation n()tic() v/de Roc.No.C2ll 220/20231831 datc<l 0rr.09.1(ll 5. unauthorized buLkling raised by the petitioner has becr dr'rnolished Horv.'ver, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that builciirrg has been parriellv ,le molished.

3. I'he pclitioner claims to be owner of the land adnreasuring Acs. l-36 guntas in Survey Nos.323lB/1 and 32-llll'l siruatcti ar Panthini Village, Inavole Mandal, Hanumakonda District. )_ ) The petitioner submitted application belore the concerned authorities lbr N.,\LA permission which was granted to l-rinr virle proceedings No.2300228707 dated 27.03.2023. Thereafter, thc' petitionel applied tbr permission for construction ol function hall in the subject property before respondent No.2 - KIIDA, who in turn dirccted the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) tionr thc Irrigation [)cparlment.

4. It is stated that the petitioner approached the irrigation and survey authorities, the subject property of thc petitioner was inspcctcd, survey was conducted and panchananla was also preparcd to that eff'ect and irrigation authorities have also issued NOC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having taken NOC fi'om the Irrigation Departrnent, the petitioner applied fbr building permission in TG-bPASS onlinc portal in trilc No.2983 l8 lBPlGP12123210002132023 dated 05.07.1023. -l'he building pcnnission rvas neither granted nor re.jccled rvithin a period ol'twenty one (21) days as stipulated under the prorisions of' the Telangana Panchayat tta.i Act 2018. Thus, on the deemed perrnission, [)r-titioner has proceeded ra'ith construction of function hall i n t re subject propefly.

6. lt is stated that atler lapse of one (1) year, frorn the date ol filing ol applir:ation seeking building permission. r he petitioner startcd construcr ir,n ol function ha[I, and after lapse of'two (r) ycars of building app it ation, impugned intimation letter has b,:e n issucd alleging that tht' petitioner has encroached water stream,rnd buf-ler zone. I . Learnl'd c ounsel for the petitioner submitted that r espondent Nos.6 and 7 rvh r are locally influential persons have pL'ev;riled upon respondent Nos.I tt'r 5 for extraneous reasons to demolish the lunction halI constructed b} the petitioner

8. [-earned standing counsel for respondent No.5 subnritted that W.P. Nos.249ll o12025 and 6657 of 2025 was filed by lespon<lent Nos.(r and 7 firr dq'claring the action of respondent autlrori.ies in not demolishing unauthorized construction of function hall macle b-v the petitioner herein hy encroaching the Nala land in Sun',ev N,rs.323/B I and 323/8/2/). As action was initiated pursuant to rhe 61ds1 d31scl I .1 )

05.03.2025 passed by this Court in \\i.P. No.6657 o1' 2025, W.I'}. No.24921 of 2025 was disposed of by the order dated

12.08.202-5, directing respondent No.5 therein to' takc necessary action within a period of four (4) weeks frorn the date ol rece ipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, proceedings vide Roc.No.C2ll220l 20231426 dated 17.05.2025 was issued by respondent No.2, rvhercin. it rvas held that building constructed by the petitioner is in bulle'r /one.

9. The documents furnished by leamcd standing cotrnsel firr respondent No.5 reveal that respondent No.2 has conducted enquiry in Roc.No.C211220120231426 and after receipt ol reports liorn the i\ssistant Director, Survey and Land Records. Executive f rrsinccr. Irrigation and Command Area Development, l{anamkonda District, respondent No.2 came to conclusion that building was constrLrcted in the birft'er zone and total land of the petitioncr as per his docLrnrent is

7419.88 square meters. The area covered undcr stream is 1531.00 s(luarc lneters. The area covered under buttbr zone is 1490.()0 square meters. ln continuation of the proceedings dated 17.05.2025, rcspondent No.2 issued impugned intimatiorr noticc dated 06.09.2015 ) infonling the pet itioncr that her proposal for constructicrn c f Ground Floor function hali in the subject property was already rejr-'g1gd 2,16 her application rv:rs disposed of on 28.06.2025. The ph,;tographs filed oy thc learrLe,l standing counsel for respondent N,r.5 :;how that the demolition has be'en already undertaken by the rt:spondent authorities in the subject property

10. [n vieu of the above. this Court is not inclined to entr-'rtain this writ petition. Ar:cordingly, the writ petition is disposed ol', granting liberrv to thc )etitioner to submit fresh online appli:ation lo respondent Nos.l i,nd 5 fbr construction of building - firnction hall in the area not cov,:re'd by the stream and buffer zone. z\s and when, such application is submitted, necessary action shall be taken by respondent Nos.2 and 5, in accordance with lau,. by affordirrg opportunitv ol'he aling to the petitioner. There shall be no crder as to CoStS As a secluc I Lhereto. miscellaneous applications. il'any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY' - MOHD. ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR SDr PEPU 1''.* SECTION OFFICER I I

1. The Principal Secreta ry, IVunicipal administratio and urban development Department, Sr;cretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyde rabad St rte of Telangana 2. The Commissioner cum Vice Chairman, Kakatiya tJrb,rn Development Authority, War:rnqal District \ To,

3. The District Pa rchayath Officer, Hanumakonda, Hanumakon la District. a Ilg Chief Planning Officer, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangat District. !::-:*.--.-.--- --E'?.--_- )

5. The Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Panthini Village, lnavole IVIandal, Hanumakonda District. 6 One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 7.. One CC to SRI MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAlc, SC FOR KUDA [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GRATM PANCHAYAT loPUCl

9. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 10 Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1. Two CD Copies t-WLz BSR TKS HIGH COUR'I- DATED:14110t2025 I t )

7.: ,/. \', I I r S l, , \ I o OU ?0fi ii) ORDER WP.No.30993 rf 2025 DISPOSING oF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CC'STS I \o