High Court · 2025

Syed Moulana, S/o Syed Babumiya, Ag,ed about 36 years Occ. Business. R/o H..No. 6-14l4, Dommara eocrramfiar'rv vir1"s; Md;r;i ri;rr,r]6irioiJi'n,ii' '"" Mo ham med_ Ra heem uddin Ouaoh, Sto n toiZrriu"j' iG r.r.rdd in, Aqed about 35 years, occ. Business nyo H.iro.-s_zs_sriii; S;-R;ilitnilfH:tHft; !t4 F- Function Ha[, c;iuiara#;rarr,- 6-r'ti.,iJir"p* Mandat, Medchat Malkajgiri District. Syed Za.heda Pegum, W/o SVSS Ltyt:gygl Razak, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. -B-4_S49.ZOSI1, Hyderabad. SK. Mumtaj .Tabassum, Wo Shai. Akbar, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. B-4-s4st2os,Sn.n[idirnadJi e;;siloil,..glgffgmk Sf,infarfaNl-gar, ffi;;il;; AND 1 . State of Telanoana, Rep. !y its princip_al Secretary, Municipal Administration " +Ig !.g1l Dei.etopmerit Daprrtr;i-$JrEi"iat, Hyderabad. z. I nef_,unorgat Municipality, Rep by its Commissionei, l,teOctrit Malkakjigiri 3. The District Collector, Medchal Malkaisiri District. 4. The Revenue Divisionar omcer, tvtatii]rgirr-oivil-i6n, Medchar Markajgiri 5. The Tahasildar, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri 6. The Station House Officer, Dundigal police Station, Medchal Malkajgiri District. District. ."-"-: District. Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia orrr;ff:i:it''fll: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus decraring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No. 6-.1414, plot No. 34lPar1(south side portion) in survey No. 120/6 and 120t7 admeasuring 100 sq. yds situated at Sal puja Colony, Dommara pochampally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandar and Municiparity, Medchar Markajgiri District without issuing any notice and foflowing the due process of raw as arbitrary and ifiegar and i : I j: in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14, 16. and 300A of constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No. 6-14t4Plot No. 34/Part (south side portion) in survey No. '12016 and 12017 admeasuring 100 sq. yds situated at Sai Puja Colony, Domrnara Pochampally Village,DundigalGandimaisammaMandalandMunicipality,MedchalMalka|giri District IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition unrler Section 15 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No. 6-14l4 Plot No. 34tPatt (south side portion) in survey No. 12ot6and120/Tladmeasuringl00sq.ydssituatedatSaiPujaColony'Dommara Pochampally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal and Municipality' Medchal Malkajgiri Dtstrict Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY CounselforRespondentNo.l:GPFORMUNICIPALADMINISTRATION& URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Ms' SRAVANTHI AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No. 6: GP FOR HOME ' The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN w IT PETITION N o. 7052 oF 2024 ORAL ORDER: . Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Aniketh Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent l,lo.6. perused the record.

2. Petitioner No.1 is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.6-14/4 on plot No.34lpart (south side portion) admeasuring 100 Sq.yards in survey No.120/6 and 12017, situated at Sai puja Colony, Dommara pochampally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal and Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District, on the strength of an unregistered agreement of sale dated IL.O4.2O2O executed by petitioner No.2. According to the petitioner No.1, he is in possession of the said property and paying property tax to respondent No.2 - Municipality. In proof of the same, he has filed copy of property tax receipt dated 08.05.2020. Even then, respondent Nos.2 to 6 tried to dispossess petitioner No.1 from the said property without following due 2 process of law. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent Nos'2 to 6, the petitioners filed the present writ petition'

3. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing fcr respondent No.6, on instructions, would submit that neither respondent Nos.2 and 6, nor their staff interfered with the said property of petitioner No.1, as alleged in the writ petition'

4. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5, has produced written instructions, wherein it is stated that the land in Sy'Nos' l2Ol6 and l2)l7, situated at Dommara pochampally Village, is an assigned land. The proceedings were already initiated under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and possession was taken vide procee.dings No.A/250/2004, dated 23'02'2007 under a cover of panchanama' Since then, the land is in possession' custody' wardandrvatr:hofthegovernment'Thesaidwritteninstructions are placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the same by saying thal: petitioner No.1 is in possession of the said property on the strength of the aforesaid unregistered agreement of the sale 3 dated 11.04.2020. He has also placed reliance on the property tax receipt dated 08.05.2020,

6. A perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner No.1 is claiming the right over the said property under unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.04.2020. He is claiming that he has paid property tax vide receipt dated 0g.05.2020 to respondent No.2 for the years 2019-2020. When he was claiming right over the unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.04.2020. He cannot pay the property tax for the year 2Olg-2O. In the present case, he has not even availed LRS scheme. There is no challenge to the proceedings dated 23.02.2007. Thus, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 did not file any document in proof of the ownership for the said property except the aforesaid unregistered agreement oF sale dated Ll.04.2020 and property tax dated 0g.05.2020.

7. In similar circumstances, vide order dated 29.L1.2O24 in W.P.No.33566 of 2O24, on considering the facts of the petitioners therein, claimed the property over the subject plots under unregistered agreement of sale, this Court has granted liberty to the petitioners therein to challenge the proceedings dated 23.02.2007 within one month, failing which, this Court granted liberty to the respondents to take action against the petitioners. 4 In the present case also, petitioner No' 1 is claiming right 8. over the Hc,use bearing No-6-t4/4, Plot No'34/Part (south side portion) in Survey No.12016 and l2O/7 admeasuring 100 Sq'yards situated at Sai Puja Colony, Dommara Pochampally Village' Dundigal Ganciimaisamma Mandal and Municipality, Medchal by placing reliance on the receipt dated Malkajgiri t)istrict,

08.05.2020 In the Iicrht of the said discussions, this Writ Petition is 9. disposed of gr,lnting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the resumption proceedings dated 23.02.2007 within a period of one (01) month from today. Till then, respondent Nos'2 to 6 are directed not to disposes the petitioners from the subject property without follcwing due process of law. Respondent Nos'2 to 6 shall also inspect the site and if the petitioners found to be not in possession, they are at liberty to take action against the petitioners herein. If the petitioners fail to challenge the proceedings dated 23.02.2007, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2to6totakeactionagainstthepetitionersinaccordancewith law. Petitioners shall not make any construction over the said property without obtaining permissions from the respondents' There shall be rro order as to costs. 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sD/. L. Vt AYA LAXMI ASSISTANT EGISTRAR SE ION OFFICER -if District. District. vO'eraoao. 1' The Principal secretary,. Municipar_Adrhinistration And Urban Deveropnrent ^ p.eOqrtment, State of Tetangane, Sd;ei;;at, 2. The commissioner- DrrndigEr \a-u1i9rpi[iv, tr,leaitiJ M]ikakjigiri District. 3. The District coilecrirr, Medthar MriHiqiriiiiGt";.'-' 4. I he Revenue Divisionat Officer, MalkaJgiri Division, Medchal Malkajgiri 5. The Tahasildar. Dundioal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri 6. The Station House Officer, Dundigal police Station, Medchal Malkajgiri 7. 8. 9. District. Qne QC to Sri Gudi Madhus.udtran Reddy Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri Krishna Reddy putta. navtrcaierOpUil Two CCs to Gp For Municipit nomrhistrataon d Urd#oevetopment, High Court for the State of Telanbana. {OUTI .Two ccs to Gp For Revenrie, xigitr coirrt tor the Stateof rerangana. [our] . Two CCs_to GP For Home, High eourt for tne SiaG oifefrnga;a. tOtjTl . Two CD Copies To, 10 11 12 MBC BN CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 t\E S T,'I T 1 q O v C)), j:. .A' 0 I ,lxti 7[?5 * ...:jF.:-; r'r ' ''-'l + I ORDER WP.No.37052 of 2024 DISPOSING OF WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \A>9 \ ,2