High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the lmpugned Letter-No. 01lGRPf l24, Dt 08.11.2024 to demolish the structures within 3 days alleging that the Petitioners have encroached 3'ft construction towards the western side of the house of the 4th Respondent herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the said Impugned Letter lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the lmpugned Letler No. 01lGRPf l24, Dt.08.11.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein with regard to the demolition of 3'ft construction on the Western Side of the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Appoint an Advocate Commissioner with regard to the'encroachment of the 3 Feet construction on the Western Side of the 4th Respondent House in between the Petitioner's house in connection with the impugned Letter No. OllGRPf 24' Dt.08.11.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein with regard to the demolition of 3'ft construction on the Western Side of the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal. Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Deparlment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar District, Karimnagal. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

1. Sriramoju Anjaneyulu, Sio. Sriramoju Sri Ramulu, Ageci about 50 years, Occ, Business, R/o.H.No.6-83, Gopalraopet, RamaduguMandal, Karimnagar District.

2. Enuqurthi Sathyamma, Wo. Enugurthi Rajarnouli, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.6-77, Gopalraopet, Rarnadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. Gopalraopet Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Gopalraopet, RamaduguMandal, Karimnagar District.

4. T. Padma, Wio. Shankaraiah, aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No-6-78, Gopalraopet, RamaduguMandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 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 vacate the interim orders dated 14.1 1.2024 in WP.No.31989/2024 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits lA NO:'l OF 2025 Between: T. Padma, Wo. Shankaraiah, H.No.6-78, GopalraoPet, Ram aqed about 50 vears, Occ. Housewife, R/o. ad'uguMandal, karimnagar District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.4 AND 1 2 Sriramoru Anianevulu, S/o. Sriramoiu Sri Ramulu. Aged about 50 years. Occ Businest, rilo.H.tto.o-A:. Gopaliaopet, RamaduguMandal. Karimnagar District. Enuourthi Sathvamma, Wo. Enuqurthi Ralarnouli. Aged about 75 years' Occ Houiehold, R/6. H No 6-77. Go-palraopei. Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developmenl Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar' 5. Gopalraopet Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Gopalraopet, RamaduguMandal. Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 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 vacate the interim suspension order in w.P.No.3'1989 of 2024 dated 14.11.2024 and dismiss W.P.No. 31989 of 2024 wilh exemplary costs Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. M BHAGYASRI Counsel for the Respondent NOs.1&2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: SRI P. KISHORE RAO SC FOR ZILLA PARISHAD Counsel for the Respondent no.4: SRI MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE T' MADHAVI DEVI WRI-I'PETITION NO.31989 OF 2024 ORDER ln this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofthe 3d respondent in issuing the impugned Letter No.0I/GRPT/24, dt.08.11'2024 to demolish the structures mentioned therein within a period of three (3) days' as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.

2.BrieffactsleadingtothefilingoftlrepresentWritPetitionare that the I't petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing house No'6-83, Gopalraopet' Ramadugu Mandal' Karimnagar District having succeeded to the same from his lather and the |tt petitioner's name was incorporated in the concerned Gram Panchayat records and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said house. The 2n'i petitioner claims to have inherited the premises bearing house No.6-77 which is adjacent to the house of the l" petitioner and both the petitioners claim to be in possession of their respective houses 2 W.P.No.3 I989 of 2024 since several years. It is submitted that the struchtres of the premises ol the house No.6-83 were in dilapidated condition and therefore, the l't I petitioner obtained requisite permission from the 3'd respondent on

18.06.2010 bearing No.2/2010 and laid new RCC roof and later in the year 2011, constructed the first floor and the 4th respondent, who is the owner of the premises bearing house No.6-78 and whose house is located beside the houses of the petitioners, was not having any land as she has constructed in the entire land and no land was left over towards the petitioners' houses. The petitioners claim that there was small open area between their houses, wherein wash room was constructed and the said wash room is behind the house of the 4ft respondent and that the impugned notice dt.08.11.2024 was issued alleging that a memo dt.22.01.2024 has been issued by the 2nd respondent, but the said memo was not appended to the notice. Therefore, the petitioners were not aware of the contents of the said memo. The petitioners have received a notice dt.03.02.2024 from the 3'd respondent, wherein the petitioners were directed to remove the structures within three davs. It was observed therein that the said notice was issued basing on the complaint given by the 4n respondent alleging that the 1" petitioner has encroached into her property to an extent of (three) 3 leet and that the 3 W.P.No.3l989 of 2024 wash room of the 2"d petitioner is constructed illegally. It is alleged that the 3'd respondent has issued the said notice without any enquiry whatsoever and without following due process of law. Thus alleging, the said notice was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.3687 of 2024 and vide orders dt.06.08.2024, this Court had set aside the same and directed the respondents to conduct de novo enquiry by issuing notices to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent. Accordingly, the 3'd respondent has issued notice dt.24.09.2024 ard the statements of the petitioners as well as the 4s respondent have been recorded and thereafter, another notice dt.23.10.2024 was issued to submit their link documents, if any, within a period of seven (7) days to take action for remova[ of the illegal encroachments. The petitioners claim that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned notice dt.08.11.2024 has been issued and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has reiteratecl the above submissions and has drawn the attention of this Court to the permission granted to the 1'1 petitioner for construction in the year 2010-2011 and also to show that the wash room constructed by the 2"d petitioner was I \ 4 W.P.No.i 1989 of 2024 available since then. He has referred to the photographs taken in the year 1998-99 which are filed at pages 47 and 48 ofthe writ papers.

4. This Court, vde orders dt.14.11.2024, had granted interim suspension of the impugned notice issued by the 3'd respondent and the same was extended from time to time.

5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition in LA.No.l of 2025, alleging that the 4th respondent's I house was constructed in the year 1978 and they have left 3 feet vacant land for effective rainwater drainage and to prevent water from flowing into neighbouring land and that petitioners 1 and 2 have constructed house on the westem side of the 4th respondent's house, wherein the I't petitioner has constructed the house by projecting the beam onto top of their roof and the 2nd petitioner has constructed wash room attached to the 4th respondent's house wall by encroaching into the 4s respondent's house and therefore, they have made several complaints, but in vain and thereafter, the 4ft respondent has filed a complaint through Prajavani which prompted the authorities to take action leading to the issuance of the initial notice calling for removal of unauthorised and illegal constructions made by the petitioners, against which the petitioners have approached this Court and the Court had directed the official ..-----.--------l 5 W.l',No.I1989 of 2024 respondents to conduct de novo enquiry and it is submitted that in compliance with the High Court's order, the 2nd respondent has conducted enquiry by issuing notices to both the parties and the 2nd respondent has found that the petitioners have unlawfully encroached upon the 4,h res,ondent's land and constructed illegal structures and therefore, the inrpugned notice dt.08.11.2024 has been issued' It is further submitted that the 2nd petitioner has alienated her house property through a fraudulent registered sale deed and that she has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. In respect of the 1't petitioner's claim that he has obtained permission for construction in the year 2010, it is stated that the I " petitioner has not filed any building plan and that the l" petitioner is stilt making construction and making changes in the first floor. The 4'h respondent, therefore, prayed for vacation of the interim order and dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. The ofhcial respondents have filed their counter affidavit through the 2nd responclent along with LA.No.3 of ZOZq to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. Enclosed to the counter affidavit are t}re enquiry repon dt. 11.12.2023, the memo dt.22.01.2024, the notice dt.23.10.2024 and the proceedings dt.06.11.2024. Photographs are also filed along with the counter affidavit to demonstrate that there is 'l 'l I I 6 W.P.No.3 1989 of 2024 seepage of water into the house of the 4fi respondent due to the adjoining wash room. According to the official respondents, pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.3687 of 2024, notices were issued to both, the writ petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent and after conducting enquiry on 01.10.2024, they have issued notices to both the parties and recorded the statements of both the parties and on verification of the records and statements of both the parties and also on verification of the site, it was found that the house building staircase beams of Sriramoju Anjaneyulu ( I 't petitioner) and wash rooms .of Smt. E.Sathyamma (2nd petitioner) are found to have encroached into the 4th respondent property and have caused damage to her property. Thcrefore, the writ petitioners were directed to submit their link documents with which registration has been done and both of them have submined joint explanation stating that the 4ft respondent has not submitted any papers at the time of enquiry and that the l't petitioner got permission in the year 2010 and completed constructed in the year 201 1. However, the enquiry officer found that the house of the 4th respondent was constructed long ago whereas, the l't petitioner has encroached into the property of the 4'h respondent during the year 2011 unauthorisedly and ------- I w.P.l.{o.31989 0f 2024 that the 2nd petitioner also has constructed the wa-sh room by encroaching into thc 4'h respondent's property. 7, Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the report of the official respondents clearly goes to show that the petitioners have not been able to establish, with their documents, that they have any right over the land in which the staircase or the wash room were constructed. The official respondents have conducted field verification as well, and the writ petitioners have not been able to dentonstrate as to how the report of the official respondents is not in accordance with f,acts on the site. Even from the photographs filed by the official respondents as well as the unofficial respondent, it appears that there is some encroachment into the property of the 4ft respondent and any illegal encroachment has to be removed and the official respondents are duty bound to take action against the same in accordance with law. In this case, the writ petitioners have been given ample opportunity to substantiate their claims and the official respondents have considered their documents and also made field inspection before coming to a conclusion.

8. This Courr. therefore, does not find any merit in this Writ petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8 W.P.No.l1989 of 2024 .-\

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition including I.A.No.3 of 2024 and I.ANo.l of 2025 shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANA - DEPUTY BH EDDY TRAR IS SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to Ms. fU BHAGYASRI Advocate [OPUC] 2 3 4 One CC to SRI P. KISHORE RAO SC FOR ZILLA PARISHAD [OPUC] One CC to SRI MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies KKS BS g HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ORDER WP.No.31989 of 2024 J rJ ?'r ,r.,1 i$6 L r1 > * nis+., .t:r=:,: i! DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @P %'{"