Gaddam Jyothi v. 1. The State of Telangana

1 0. Sridhar Chary, S/o. Not Known, Aged about [r/ajor, Occ-- Polician/ JCB Owner, FJo. Ameenpur, Sanga ReddY. 11 . Nomula Anjaneyulu, S/o. Not Nnown, Aged about tr/ajor, Occ- Polician/JCB Owner, Fl/o. AmeenPur, Sanga ReddY. .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of IUANDAMUS under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring the respondents the action of demolition of the petitioners dwelling house on dated- 28t0912025 by respondents revenue authorities without giving prior and proper notice and due procedure of law. ln-action on petitioner complaints through post to police offictals dated-1 3- 1C- arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 3004 of constitutic r of Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board in pursuant to 1St res orders in Letter vrde lr/emorandum No. 65246/430Al2l9( consequently direct the respondents to accord/allow the peli compound wall, house over the Plot No. 75, to the extent Sy.No. 457lA, situated at Bhoodan Yagna Board Land Kaslt Sulthanpur Village and Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy t necessary penal action for demolished the petitioners hou justice.

1025.18-10-2025 as of lndia, section 14 londent clarificatory -12. Dt 29-06-1994, ioner to re-construct rf 150 Sq.Yards., in rbha lvlahila Colony, istrict besides initial ie in the interest of l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 'r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to grant injunction against the respondents as well as accord p: mission to construct a Hurt/Asbestosicompound to protect the Plot No. 75, 1c the extent of 'l 50 Sq,Yards., in Sy.No. 457lA, situated at Bhoodan Yagna Bc:rd Land Kasturbha lt/ahila Colony, Sulthanpur Village and Patancheru lvlandal, I anga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BASKULA ATHIK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR ASSIGN /IENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI P.KRISHNA REDD)'. SC FOR MUNICIPALTTES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : SRI N.SREEDHAR IIEDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 & 10 : - The Court at the stage of admission made the following Ott )ER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PEf,ITION No.32752 of 2O2S ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent revenue authorities in demolishing the petitioner's house on 28.O9.2025 without giving prior and proper notice and following due procedure of law and inaction on the petitioner's complaints through post to police officials dated

13.10.2025 and 18.10.2025, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondents to accord / allow the petitioner to reconstruct the compound wall, house over the plot No.75 to an extent of 150 square yards 1n Sulthanpur Village & Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District besides initial necessary penal action for demolishing the petitioner's house

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Somaiah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent *o.6 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.9.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the beneficiary in the proceedings passed by respondent No.9 uide proceedings No.BYB/C/47 l2Ol4, dated 21.O7.2014, where the petitioner has been granted plot No.75 to an extent of 15O square 2 yards in Survey No.457/A situated in Sulthanpur \ illage, Patancheru Manda-l, Sangareddy District. The petitioner is a pr >r lady working as housekeeping worker. It is further submitted that r :spondent No.9 in coordination wilh other olhcial respondents creat: 1 Bhoodal Yagna Board Larld by name Kasturbha Mahila Colony Werl :re Association, in which the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid 1a nd. It is further submitted that the petitioner had paid Rs,, 0,000/- towards membership in the said Association. Basing on ttr, said proceedings issued by respondent No.9, the petitioner had conri' ructed a house in the said colony. It is further submitted that : .s and when the petitioner had approached the Colony Secre -i ry concerned respondent No.1 1, the Colony Secretary raised an ot iection that not to build the house and they will build the house in tL t said plot a-llotted to her ald demalded to pay Rs.3,5O,0OO/-, to u,l- ich the petitioner had Rs.50,000/- for the construction of the house rr r O5.01.2020, but the said house r,r.as not constructed till 2O23 due to lorona paldemic. Sometime in May, 2024, the petitioner had constrr .cted a room and bathroom over the said piece of property allotted to her. It is further submitted that u,hile the petitioner was undertakinll the flooring work, the Tahsildar, Ameenpur Maldal - official resporl behest of respondent No. 1 1 with the help of r.r lent No.4 at the spondent No.10, demolished the house of the petitioner herein. Th,: petitioner having no other option, and since the land has been allocated to the 3 petitioner by respondent No.9, had made a representation to the said authority on 13.1O.2O25 seeking to enquire into the rnatter and corne to the rescue of the petitioner herein. Since no action has been taken on the petitioner's representation dated 13.10.2025, the petitioner is constrained to hle this writ petition by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Opposing the same, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.9 submitted that as per procedure, an e-patta must be issued by respondent No.4 based on the proceedings of respondent No.9. In the absence of an e-patta, the petitioner's allotment cannot fructify. It is to be examined whether the petitioner's documents match the records of respondent No.9, and if so, necessa-ry action shall be taken in accordance with law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the subject land now falls within municipal limits, and no construction can be permitted without prior approval from the Municipality. Since no such permission or application was submitted by either the petitioner or unofficial respondents, the Municipality is duty-bound to prevent unauthorized constructions within its jurisdiction.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pieader for Assignment submitted that respondent No.4 did not act on any direction from I t 5 As a sequel thereto miscellaleous applications I any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE coPY/t SD/- C. DEEPIKA ASSI:] TANT REGISTRAR (9. SECTION OFFICER To 1

2. ? 4 6 7 8 I 10 11 . The Princioal Secretary, State of Telangana' Revenue [) rvelopment ""i"i-"It. Orf ,ie at,'secretariat, Hyderabad' ii5biliri"lcollector. Sanga Reddv District +il; il;;;;;;-Divisional oflicer, Sansa Reddv' ine f rransitOar, AmeenPur Mandal' +ii; iHt;; H;use offiier, Ameenpur Police Station . , iiiE ilrr,iiJi'p'ricommission-ei' nrn'i"nput' sanga.Redd" )istrict' ihl iii"i=innrt Enoineer, TSSPDCL, Sanga Reddy' +ii; il;i;i;"i Engin"".., rssPDCL Patancheru' The Authorized officer' reta-ngZ"''-st{;,e199911Ya3 ra Board' 2nd Floor' c'cin. iiriroins, Station Road. Nampally Hvdell9?9' #""iii"'"sii'aAbxuLn ATHIK, Advocate [oPUC] .Two CCs to GP FoR ASSlaitit\'{ENi' riiir' bb"t for th I State of Telangana at Hvderabad. [OUTI

12.Tffi"bC;t,r Ep ibn HolvlE, High courtforthe State o. Telangana at 13 oi,:"bCi;dilr r'r'snrEonnR REDDY' Alyo-cglg.(oe' c) 14. One cc to sRl p KRtsHliI-R'ED-D"y; i'c Foc rr'rui.rtc t ALlrES, Advocate Hvderabad. [OUT] (oPUC) 1 5. Two CD CoPies SA GJP w HIGH COURT t DATED:3011012025 ORDER WP.No.32752 ot 2025 i) ,( ,.' . ;l;i l', ".-'-'a.. ii:'. I fi B[i; 2gg ,:.,^,.',1',.. DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. 6, .4;(eA X6,