High Court · 2025

6. M/s. Myron Homes Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Sri. Malli Yuvaraju, S/o. Late M. Veera Swamy, Yenkepally Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 are in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring, the action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not acted upon my representations dt. 19-1 1-2024 and 22-11-2024 in restraining the unlawful and illegal layout venture carrying out by the 6th Respondent who misrepresenting before the Respondents 3 and 4 obtained permission vide Lr. ROC. No. 3497125612024/e-Panchayat, Dt. 12'O7-2024, though as per demarcation the 6th Respondent is having only Ac. 15.3 gts in Sy. No. 94, but the 6th Respondent constructing total Ac.17.32 Gts in Sy. No. 94 by encroaching the Petitioner's land to an ex.ent of 0.28 gts in Sy. No. 94/RU/1 situated at Yenkkepally Village of Pudur Mandal Vikarabad District and other Government assign Iands which is illegal, arbitrary as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. and consequently set aside tie impugned Permissions Lr. ROC. No. Responde 34971256/2o24le-panchayat, Dt. 12-0Z-2024 granted in favour of 6th nt. I lA NO: 1 OF 2O2a Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firecr in support or tne peiition, itr" i]gr, court may be preased to direc,t the Respondent Nos. 2 to s to consioer tne representa tion dt. 19_11_2o24 and 22-11-2024 made by the.petitioner thereby direciing the otn nesponoenllio sv No e4lRu/'r situaieo Jveikkenp;ly';iL;;,;;;,, il:iJf ;i;5;:xon'" lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between Mis. Myron Homes pvt. Ltrj, Rep. by Sri. Malli yuvaraju, S/o. Late M. Veera Swamy, yenkepaly vitage,lDudr;r rr,ti"air,' titirli,r? bi.tri"t AND ...PETITIONER No. 4 - 1 -7 3t t a, 6rs co ro ny, vikr;;b; j il,i;il"-j:Vii;,, bad District. Departmenr. Secretariir Buitdinds, fio,iri'urii-' "

1. Srinivas Machaooni S/o. M..Ramaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business. Rl/o. H_ 2. The State of Telanoana,.. Rep by principal Secretary panchayath Raj 3. The District Coilector, Vikarabad District 4. The District Town and Country planning Officer, Vikarabad District. 5. The District panchayat Officer, Vikarabad District. . yenkepaily Gram panchayat, pudur Mandat, ill"rrlr*"8?J,?r tsecretary, ...]IESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited i.r supp_ort of the peiitio;, in" riigt co,r;;t;'J["."0 vacate the interim orders of status quo passed onoqh2tz0zq ir"wp irr--". iiiez " of 2024. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. M PARMA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No. i, 3 & 4: Cp iOn PANCHAYAT RAJ Counset for the Respondent No. 2 : Gp FOi neVi'frfUe !.9yn-s9tj91tne Respondent No. 5 : R oraruone siEKAR REDDY (Sc FoR TS zrLLA PARTSHADS) Counsel for the Respondent No- 6 : SATISH KUMAR DORNALA The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE T. MADHAVT DEVI wR_tT PETITTON NO.33787 0F 2024 ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petirioner is seeking a direction to rcspondents 2 to 5 to act upon his representations dt.l9.i 1.2024 and

22.i1.2024 to rcstraih the unla.,vfui and illegal layout being laid by respondent lrio.6 aft cr obtaining pe.uissicn, vrde Lr. ROC.N o.3 497 I 25 6 i 2024le-Pancltayat, dt.12.07.2L124, fr.om the authorities by misrepresentatio^ and eircroaching i^tc the land of the petitioncr and to cleclare '"lie action ci r.espc;irriu;ris 2 to 5 i:r nct actini4 uporr ll:e representations of the petitioncr rrs illcgal, arbitraq, anci ia violation of priacipies of natural jtrstice ar.iC to irass such o,.her oriei or orders.

2. Brief facts ieading to the filirrg of tlie preseur vrrrit petition are that the pctitioner clai;r:s to be the o,.,rne. cnfr possessor of the laud tu an extent of 1,c.0.28 gurras in -suney N<;.94,,Rt_Ji l, ye*kkenpally Viliage. Pudur Manda-i, Vikaraced Districr l-,'a.vir,g purchased the garne urrdcr a registeled sale deed Secr,ing Dccu,:ler.:i i.io.j79120 23 (tt.15.02.2A2-l iion: cne Siirl. Vattam Aili:::;-.a, \#o y. *c.-::,:5i-, Icr a_ vaii:abic conside;i:aion. 1'he petitioner claiins to iiave bercir lssueC qerv r)atre.d?rr p,assbooi< rzrcle W.P.No.3i787 of 2024 2 No.T0715002 0774 with Kaiha n-o.60414. The petiiioner claims to have made an application vide F -Line Application No.DER02240 10927 29 for conduct of survey and for fixing of boundaiies of iiis [and' However' the respondents did not conduct any survey and according to the petitioner' in collusion with respondent No.5, respondent No.6 intended to lay a venture under the name and style of IWs. Myra Homes Pvt' Limited' It is alleged that respondent No.6 obtained demarcation certilicate from the Survey and Land Record, Vikarabad dt.l2.lo'2023 claiming Ac.15.03 guntas of land in Survey No.94 and has obtained TLP permission from respondents 2 to 5 videLr. ROC.No.3497l256l2024le' Panchayat dt.12.07.2024. Alleging that respondent No.6 has encroached into the land of the petitioner and that the petitioner's representations dt.lg.ll.2024 and,22.11.2024 have not yielded any result, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. This Court had initially directed status quo as on the date of the order dt.04. 12.2024 to be maintained. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner had filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.32 992 of 2024 and vide orders dt.25. I I '2024, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to conduct survey of the land, but due to the interim order of status quo dt.04.12.2024, the survey W.P.No.33787 of 2024 3 was not being conducted. This Court modified the interim order and clarified Lhat the order of .srdr,e, quo dt.04.12.2024 will not come in the u,ay of the respondent authorities in conducting of suruey as per the clirection of this court dt.25.11.2024 i, w.p.No.32992 oi 2024. This Court's cirder was passed after observing that both the petitioner ancl respondent No.6 have no objection for conduct of survey anci demarcation of the boundaries. This court had also made it clcar that there is no embargo on respondent No.6 in developiag its property except to an extent of Ac.C.28 gunlas of land i. Sur'ey l{o.9zllRU/l situated at 'lenliepally Viliage, pudur Mand;rl, Vikarabacl District. 'ihereafter. the revenue officials f,'cni rhe office of respondent i.o.3 havc conducted the survey and have hled a report alone ..vith rnemo dt.18.03.2025. The Mandar surveyci has observed that the borindaries of survey No.9T ha'e been den:e,rcatecl and tl-re bcrindarics irave beer, fixr:d anC shcwn to tire paities, bui iire pctitioncr is ciauning sui;- division of Surve1,.No.94lRU/1 to a! extenr of Ac.0.2g guntas. but vrhoin the Ivlandal Surveyor proceecieci ro conduct sub-division sur,,ey t(, ar! exten[ of Ac.0.28 gunhs in Suri,-ey ]r1o.94. tr\e petitioner bss not sirown his enjoymelt of the lar:<i/physicai possessio;: on gr cun<i ancl as oer the survel,record, i;e., tire villagc map. there erre no suh_divisions W.P.No.l3?37 of 2024 4 incorporatccl in the village maP ior Survey IJo'94 sihlated at Yenkepally Village, Pudur lrtandal, Vikarabad District and therefore' the survey for sub-division of Survey No'94/RU/l to an extent of Ac'0'28 guntas cculd not be conductecl. Encloseci therewith are the pattadar passbook of thc petitioner and also F-Line survey appiication of the writ petitioner'

4. Leamed counsel for rcspondent No'6 relied upoir the averments made in the counter affidavit of lespondent No'6 and submitted that the petitioner is not in the enjoyment of his property and he is only clairning through a registered sale cleed in the year 2023' whereas respondent No.6 has purchased the property in Survey No'94 and also obtained permission for layout and that it is only proceeding rvith the development of the layout in accordance with the said permission'

5. Leamed counsel for rbspondent No'6 has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K' Jayaram and others Vs' Bangalore Development Authority and othersr to submit that under Art\clc226 of the Constitution of India' the power of this Court is extraordinary' equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with Icivil Appeal No(s).7550-7553 of2o2l arising out ofs L'P (C)No(s) 26314 26311 of 2013 - dt.08.I2.2021 ,/ W.P.No.33787 oi2024 5 clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. According to respondent No.6 herein, the petiticner has not come with clean hands. \ \

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioner is owner ol Ac.0.28 guntas of land in Survey. No.94lRU/1 of Yenkkepally Viltage, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District by virtue of the registered sale deed artd the pattadar passbook submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased it from onc Smt. Vattatn Archana, W. V. Suresh Fiorvever, the petitioner has not been abie to show the boundaries of his land either in the Writ Petition nor before the survey autliorities. Respcnderrt No.6 also adniittedly is. the owtrer and possessor of Ac.15.03 guntas of land in Surve-v No.94. The irlentification of the petitionei-'s land is the issue hefi;re this Court. It is a iactual issire ',vhich ca;: oniy be considered by the civil Ccuri. This Court, unCel Atl"ial.e 226 of tlre Constituticn of India. cannot ,iecide on the location or boundaries of the land of the petitioner. Therefore, ihis Coun does not finci any mcrit in this Writ Petition. Hovicver. thc pctitionei is ai libtl'ty tcr approach tire 'appropliate Coun cr authcrit-v lor denr::icatioll olhi: izrnd. W.P.l{o.33 787 of 2024 6

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No orcier as to costs.

8. Pending rriscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition including I.A.No.2 of 2024 shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA AS.SISTANT REGISTRAR I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. M PARMA REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 2. One CC to SRt R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR'TS ZTLLA PARTSHADS, [OPUC]

3. One CC to SATISH KUMAR DORNALA, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CCs to cP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare copy W KSW/BSK ) HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.3378',7 of 2024 ( e STATE ry) \o 11 JUN ilffi t I. -\ ll Es, r rtCl DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0fin -4ttb ,]