The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 3rd Respondent in straightaway demolishing the part of eastern site compound wall ' and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his patta land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey Nos- 30712127 to 30712131, situated in Ga.iualaramaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Greater Hyderabad, without issuing any notice whatsoever, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutiona I, contrary to Article 300.4 of the Constitution of lndia and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice /. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 34369 OF 2016) 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 direct the 3rd Respondent not interfere with the possession of petitioner's patta land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey Nos. 30712127 lo 30712131 , situated in Ga.jualaramaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Greater Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, APPEARING FOR SRI MOHD. ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RAVI MAHENDER (SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLB SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Writ Petition No.27746 of 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in straightaway demolishing a part of eastem side compound wall ol the petitioner's land admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntasin Sy.Nos.307/2/27 to 30712131, situated Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad (hereinafter ref-erred to as 'sr-rbject land'), without issuing any notice, and threatcning to dispossess the petitioner from the sub.iect land, as illegal, arbitrary and violative olArticle 300-A of Constitution of India.

2. I{eard Sri Chanta Rama Rao, leamed senior counse'l appearing for Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel-on- record for lhe petitioner, and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. Learned senior counsel appeaiing lbr petitioner submittcd that petitioner is owner of the sub.ject land having acquired the samc under registcred sale deed bearing document No.9384/2000, dated 08.12.2000 from his vendor. who became owner o1'the same 2 LNA, J H/P.n'o-27746 of 2016 by virtue of the Certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy Act. He further subrnitted that the name of the petitioner was rnutatcd in the revenue records and an NoC was also issued in l-avour o1' petitioner by the District Collector, vide Lr.No.E5i4.145/2004. dated 11.06.2004. Mrile the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 without any notice, came to the subject land and demolished a part ol- courpound wall on its eastern side, i.e.. about an extent of 20 leet out of I 100 feet and on resistance frorn the pctitioner, the respondcnts stopped further dernolition. .1.1. Leurnecl str.rior cotrnsel lirrthe r subrnitted that thc crstrvhilc' State of Andhra Pradesh allotted an extent of Acs.20.00 guntas out of Acs.238.00 guntas to erstwhile Qutubullapur Municipality in Sy.No.307r I ol Gajularau.rarar.r'r Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Rcddy District, lor the purpose of dump yard and the same is being Lrsed by Qutubullapur Municipality as such till 2007 and later. the said land was allotted to APSFC. He further submitted thal the' said land allotted to erstwhile Qutubullapur Municipality ar-rd the petitioner's land has a colnnlolt boundary wall and he finally submitted tl.rat the action of respondent No.3 in demolishing the eastern side compound wall olthe petitioner's land without any -- J LN.,I, J WP.No.27746 of 2016 notice is improper and illegal and theretbre, prays to allow the Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing lor respondents, by referring to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. I to 3, subrnitted that an extent of Acs.20.00 was allotted to Qutubullapur Municipality and the same was handed over to it under the cover of panchanama along with sketch plan and the lespondents are erecting a compound wall to safeguard the said properly. [n the counter, it is specifically denied that respondent No.3 starred dernolishing the eastern side cornpound wall olthe subject land of the petitioner on 07.07.2016 with a JCB.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased thc subject land under registered sale deed, as stated supra, and his name has also been nrutated in the revenue records. It is the specihc case of the petitioner that he has got constructed a compound wall encircling Acs.4.00 guntas. On the other hand, respondent contended that an extent of Acs.20.00 was allotted to tl.re erstwhile Qutubullapur Municipality and the same was being used as dump yard by them till 2C07. .-a .i LNA, J tlP.No.27746 of 2016

6. Though thc respondents contended that they have not demolished a part of eastern side compound wall of the petitioner's sLrbject land, and in fact, they rvere only trying to erect a compound rvall, thc photographs filed along with Writ Petition would show that the conrpound wall is partly dernolished

7. Further, the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents IS silcnt as to the issuance ol any notice to the petitioner belore r-rndertaking thc dernolition ol cornpound wall. The respondents ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before taking an extrernc step of dernolition olcompound wall. Therefore, the action ol the respondents in demolishing part of eastem side compound wa[[ of the petitioner's sub.ject land is an high handed act and the same cannot be approved

8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of rvith a direction to the respondents not to interlere with the peaceful possession of the subject land by the petitioner. llowever, this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner by following due pgrcedure conternplated under law, in case the compound wall -- 5 LNA, J WP.No.27746 of 2016 is constructed illegally and any land belonging to APSFC has been encroached by the petitioner.

9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. No costs. To, SD/- B. REKHA AS ISTANT REG //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. Commissioner, The Greater Hyderabad lvlunici rporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2. the Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad l\/untcipal Corporation, Secunderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle - 15, Qutbullapur, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI IVOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K RAVI MAHENDER (SC FOR GHMC) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies PVL GJP NT HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 1 ilE Sl.A , C> 2 B JAll 2tl26 i' * I A ,/' ...,, .2/ ORDER WP.No.27746 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ ,r\",\,.