The High Court · 2025

Between: '' l.RavulaKishanRao,S/o.RavulaChandraiah,AgedaboutT2years,occ- 2. v;dla Balamani, W/o. Vadla Gang;adhar Aged about 50 years ucc' - 3. Dandham ilajamani, W/o. Gandham Raja L-ingam, Aged about /4 years' ucc' - +. Siddaam Shetty Ramesh, S/o- Rachandram, Aged about 59 years' ucc' S. Siddam Shetty Sunitha, W/o Siddam Shetty ,Srinivas, Aged about 4ct years' " O;; ffir."*iie, R/o. n. ruo.l-tAlt, N/achareddy Kamareddy^ 6. Sutari chandram, S/o. Sutari Asaiah, Aged about 48 years, (Jcc. Farmer, Kio. putiat<ot<uta Narsaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Z. puttat<ot<uti Srinivas, 8. Siddamshetti Ramesh, S/o. Siddamshetti Laxmi Raja.m, Aged atrout 52 years' - e. Raoula Devraiu, slo'L"aie ftd;; ai"-gt'it. Ageo aoout.<6 vea,rs' occ Pvt' " L';'"'i;;;Rv; H. r.to.i-oo (old No.1-30) tt4achareddv Kamareddv -^ fO Oomi(onOa Vadla Ramchandram. S/o. Bhagavantam, Aged aboud 59 years, - ll.Laooala Sandhva, S/o. Laggala Sathyanarayana, Aged about 3b years' ucc' ...pETl,oNERS Firmer, Fl/o. H. No.4-46, Irilachareddy Kamateddy OcC.F"ir"r, R/o. H. No.1 -18, ttlachan:ddy, Kamareddv OiC.Fir*er, R/o'H.No.1-37, Manchareddy, Kamareddy' Hoi"sewite,Ryd.H.tto.+-tJ,tr4achareody,Kamareddy. H. No.4-14, tVlachareddy. Kamareddy -Sio. AND building, Hyderabad.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl secretary for Revenue' Secretariat 2. The Di6trici Collector, Kama Reddy District e. Oi.trict Panchayath Raj Officer, Kama Reddy District +. rtrrinoir pin"ha'yath Rdi Officer, I\4acha Reddy Kamareddy S. pJnCftrv"th-seiretary, iVlcha Reddy Gram Panchayath Kama Reddy District' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueaWritorderordirectionmoreparticularlyinthenatureofWritof i [\,4andamus declarirg the action of flre Respondents mo re particularly Respondent No.5 in rjemolishing the petitioners following house properties SL NO, Name C)f The Petiti<>ner House No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I 10 11 Ravula B.ishan Rao Vadla []alamani Dandham f lajamani Siddaam She ty Ramesh Srddam Shetty Sunitha Sutari Chandram Puttakoku la S rin ivas Siddamsh<:tt Ramesh Ragula D -.vraju Domakond,t Vadla Ramch ar d ra m Lagga la Szrnd hya H. No.4-86, I\,4achared Jy, llaqqreqdv H.No.4-98/'1 , [\4achare<ld y, Kamaredd Kama redd y H.Nlo.1-25, Macnaredrly, Kamare qlv H.N t>.1 -1 81 1, IVacharec dy, Kamareddy H. No.4-1 4, I\,4acharedcly, Kamareddy H.No.4-46, l\,4acharedc y, Kamared dy H. No.1-'18. l\rlacharedr y. Kama redd1 H.ttlo. 1 -60(Old No.1 -3()), Kamared I M ach v H.No. 1 -37, Machareddy, Kam areddy H.No-4-1 3, tr4achareddy, Kama red l Extent of la nd {4pprs!L 160 Sq. Yards 120 Sq. Yards 120 Sq YerQs 400 Sq Yard s 180 Sq Yards 135 Sq. Yards 150 Sq Yards 180 Sq. Yards 185 Sq. Yards 150 Sq Yards 140 Sq Yards l i situated at lvracharedc y Vilage and Mandar, Kamareddy Distr ct for undertakrng expansion of internar viflage roads from 'r 5 ft to 40 ft as Arrritrary, ilegar and unconstitutionar and .gainst the principres of naturar justice ancJ Vroration of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the Respondents more :arlicurarry Respondent No.5 to rer;tore demorished structures of the Petitrr)ner in respect of the above referred hou:;e pr6psr1ts5. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circrmstances stated in the affidavit fired in ;upport of the petition, the High court nray be preased to direct the Respondentri more particurarry Respondent No.5 to forthwith stop the illegal demolishing the retitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.V.RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP DEV The Court made the following: ORDER w"Yi--;--i,'17 - THE HOI{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI I\/RIT PETtTToN NO.3202S oF 2025 ORT) ER In this \\rr t l,etition, which has been moved as a [unch ntotion. the petitioners r.r-( crlarlenging the action of tlie respondel ts, pafiicurarr' rcspondent No.5 in trying to demolish the petitioncrs. propcrries in variolrs surve) nLrmbers in Machareddy Village and j\Iandal. Karnareddy District allegedly for expansion of internal village r.oads from i 5 feet to ,lC lcet u,ithout fo,owing due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural j .rstice.

2. I-camed counser for the petitio.ers has drawn the at ention of this Couft to various photographs filed along with the Wr t petition ro demonstrate that tl.re respondents are undertaking activity of measurements lbr- c1p6n5isn of intemal roads and due to the same, the petitioners' properties are going to be affected. The petitioners arso fired photographs at pag'|rs 51 and 52 of the writ papers to denronstrate that one of the compotrn-i rvalls has already been demolished. 2 W.P. No. 32028 of 2025 \

3. Leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent Gr.am panchayat, on oral instructions, submitted that the Village Committee has underlaken the exercise of taking measurerrcnts ol the inLcrnal roads in the village and they are yet to subrnit their proposals to the Collector and thereafter, acl-ion would be initiated lor expansion of village r.oads, il any. He submitted that as on today, there is no exercise of demolition of compound wall as shown in the photographs filed at pages 51 and 52 ol the rvrit papers. He submitted that thc orvner of the said cornpound rvall has demolished it and not the respondent authorities. He submittcd that there is no proposal to demolish any of the buildings in the village and they would lollow the due process of larv if need be in respect of the petitioners' houses or any houses in thc village.

4. In view of the above submissions, as there is no irnrninent exercise by the respondents for expansion of roads or fbl demolition of buildings without marking, this Court does not see any reason to pass any orders at this stage. The respondents are, hou,evcr, directed to follow due process of law if they intend to take action against the properties of the petitioners. .ffi/;1*.V- :* To 3 \\.P. No. 32028 of2025

5. The Writ Petil"ion is accordingly closed at the admission stage. No ordcr as to costs

6. Pending rniscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand c loscrl //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI t\4 V RAJ KUIVIAR GABRIEL, Advocate [C,PUC] 2. Two CC GP F()R REVENUE, High Court ForThe State ()f Telangana, At Hyderabad [OIJT] State Of Telangana, At Hyderabad[OUI]

3. Two CC GP F()R PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL DEV, H gh Court For The 4. One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR IVPPZPP IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoF,ie s PS ! \ HIGH COURT DATED:2311Ct12025 ORDER WP.No.3202ti of 2025 CC TODAY lliE s 3() 2{0[I ) ,t * .SPn:;- #) Y-,=:-. j:/ CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. g{ ,