Telangana High Court
WP/37099/2024 of Mekala Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2024
Anjaiah, S/o Narsaiah Aged 75 years Occ Agriculture Fl/o. H. No. 2511 Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District 2. Kavali Lakshman, S/o. Late Pochaiah Aged ab.out 55 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. H.No. 2-80, Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE [OF ][TELANGANA AT ][HYDERABAD](Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 37099 OF 2024
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mekala Anjaiah, S/o Narsaiah Aged 75 [years ]Occ Agriculture [Fl/o. ][H. ][No. ][2511]Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy [District]Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy [District]2. Kavali Lakshman, S/o. Late Pochaiah Aged ab.out [55 ][years, ][Hindu, ][Occ.]Agriculture, Rio. H.No. 2-80, Nanakramguda [Village Serilingampally ][Mandal]Ranga Reddy DistrictAgriculture, Rio. H.No. 2-80, Nanakramguda [Village Serilingampally ][Mandal]Ranga Reddy District
3. Kavali Sahadev, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Aged about [52 ][years, Hindu, ][Occ.]Agriculture, FL/o. H.No. 2-80, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally [Mandal,]Ranga Reddy DistrictAgriculture, FL/o. H.No. 2-80, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally [Mandal,]Ranga Reddy District
...PETITIONERS
AND
1The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary [Municipal]Administration and-Urban Devetbpment Department [Secretariat ][Hyderabad]Administration and-Urban Devetbpment Department [Secretariat ][Hyderabad]2Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, [Represented ][by ][its Commissioner,]Tank Bund Road, HyderabadTank Bund Road, Hyderabad3Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency [(HYDRAA),]Budha Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad represented by [its ][Commissioner]Budha Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad represented by [its ][Commissioner]4lrrigation and CAD Department, Represented by [The Executive ][Engineer,]North Tanks Division, HyderabadThe Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally [Mandal, ][RR ][District Hvderabad]...RESPONDENTSNorth Tanks Division, HyderabadThe Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally [Mandal, ][RR ][District Hvderabad]...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 pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, direction or [order ][more]particularly a wdt of Mandamus declaring the notice daled 30.12.2024 [calling]upon the Petitioners to vacate the [property ][of ][the ][Petitioners ][over ][an ][extent ][of]land admeasuring 12640 Sq. Meters [in ][Survey ][Nos. ][18/E situated ][at ][Khajaguda]
Village, Serilingampally Nlandal, Ranga Reddy District,ASa rbitrary,discriminatory, illegal, null and void and without [jurisdiction.]
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to passan order to direct Respondent No. 3 to not to interfere with the possession of thepetitioner over the property i.e. land admeasuring 12640 Sq. Meters in SurveyNos. 18/E situated at Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, and RangaReddy District.
counserrorthePetitio'",.'.t"X1,Xlt1o,,I"=oTlru3;X,1""''
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI RAPARATHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondents No.3 REDDY,'35,/[{1ff"[ilNDER
counser for the Respondents No'4 'i3iH#fli\tifi['-tf 3i, Counsel for the Respondents No.S : GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
'ry
HON'BLE [SRIJUSTICE ][I( ][LAKSHMAN ][-]
WRIT PETITI[ON No][.37099][ oB ][2024]
ORAL[ORD][ER:]
Heard [Mr. ][Kishore ][Rai' ][leamed Senior Counsel ][reprcsenttng]Ms. Divya [Rai, ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the ][petitioncrs' ][Mr' ][Raparthi]Venkatesh, [leamed Standing Counsel ][for GHMC ][appearing ][on ][behalf]-of [respondent ][No-2, ][Mr' ][Katika ][Ravinder ][Reddy' ][learned ][standing]Counsel [for ][HYDRAA ][appearing ][on behalf ][of ][respondent ][No'3 ][and]Mr. Laxmalla [Sandeep, ][leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader ][ior]lrrigation [and ][Command ][Area ][Development ][appearing ][on ][bchalf ][of]rcspondent [No.4.]
2. According [to ][the ][petitioners' petitioner ][No' ][1 ][is ][thc ][absolute]owner and [possessor ][of ][the land ][admeasuring ][Acs'3'01 ][guntas' ][while]the father [of ][petitioner ][Nos'2 ][and ][3 ][was ][the ][absolute or'vner ][and]possessor [of ][the land ][admeasuring ][Acs'3'01 ][guntas' ][both ][in ][Survey]No.l8/E. [situated ][at ][Khajaguda ][Village' ][Serilingampally ][Mandal']Rangareddy [District, ][on ][the ][strength ][of ][pafla Nos' ][I ][81 and ][5 ][1 ][with ][old]pattadar [pass ][book Nos'387763 and 191401' ][respectively ][ln proofof]the same, [they ][have ][filed ][old ][pattadar passbooks' ][title ][deeds ][and ][l3-B]and 13-C [Certificates' ][They ][have also ][filed TDR ][Certificates ][issued]
by'rcspondent No.2 authorities to show that their lands were acquiredfor road widening. Respondent No.3 has issued impugned noticedated 30.12.2024 under Section - 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955 statingthat it ha:i rcceived a complaint of encroachment of F'll/Buff-er Zoneof Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu situated atKhajaguda. Rangareddy District. Accordingly, the Asset ProtectionUnit has collected all the relevant documents and information andconfirmed that the subjcct property is falling under F'[L/Buffer Zoneof Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Chennu. Therefore,respondent No.3 has conducted a personal hearing with all thestakeholders on 28.12.2024 and explained the facts of the case. Thus,respondcnt No.3 requested the petitioners to vacate the site on theground that thc same is under FTL/Buffer Zone within 24 hours,f'ailing which. respondent No.3 will remove the illegal structures asper Section - 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
3. Perusal of impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 would revealthat thcrc is no basis for the observation of respondent No.3 that thesubject property is falling under FTliBuffer Zone of Thoutoni Kuntaand Bhagirarhamma Chenru situated at Khajaguda. The petitionerswere not put on notice and opportunity was not even afforded to them.
4. To show that the petitioners herein are the absolute ownersof the subject property, they have filed copies of the old pattadarpassbooks and title deeds and TDR Certificates issued by respondentNo.2. They are in possession of the subject property. Therefore,without conducting proper inquiry including inquiry with regard toissuance of final Notification fixing FTL/Buffer Zone of ThoutoniKunta and Bhogirathamma Cheruvu, respondent No.3 cannot directthe petitioners to vacate the subject land within 24 hours. Though inthe impugned notice dated 30.12.2024, respondent No.3 has statedabout conducting of personal hearing with all the stakeholders on28.12.2024, there is no mention with regard to the service of notice onthe petitioners and affording them an opportunity of hearing.Therefore, the entire action of respondent No.3 in issuing impugnednotice dated 30.12.2024 directing the petitioners to vacate the subjccrproperty within 24 hours is illegal.
5. The time granted by respondent No.3 to the petitioners tovacate the subject property i.e., 24 hours is also unreasonable. In thelight of the same, the said impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 is Iiableto be set aside.
4KI-.JW P [No ][3?099 ][of2024]
6. At [this ][stage, ][both ][leamed Standing Counsel appearing ][for]respondent [Nos ][2 ][and ][3' ][on ][instructions' ][would ][submit ][that ][the]petitioners [have ][erected ][temporary fencing ][with ][wire ][and ][also ][raised]temporary [sheds, ][whereas' leamed ][senior counsel ][for ][the ][petitioners]would submit [that ][to ][protect ][the land from the ][illegal ][encroachment,]the [petitioners have ][erected ][the said lencing ][with ][wire' ][The ][sheds]constructed [by ][the ][petitioners ][are ][cattle ][sheds']
7. ln [the ][light ][of ][the said ][submission' ][it ][is ][relevant to extract ][the]definition [of ][the ][building ][under ][GHMC ][Act' ][1955 ][and ][the ][same ][is ][as]under "2(3) 'building' [includes ][a ][house' ][out-house']stable. latrine, [godown' ][shed' ][hut' ][wall' ][fencirg']plattbrm [and ][any ][other ][structure whether ][of]masonry, [bricks. ][wood, ][mud' ][metal ][or ][of ][any ][other]material [whatsoever'"]
8. Thus' [temporary ][t'eniing ][and ][temporary ][sheds ][come ][within]the definition [of ]['building'' ][The petitioners ][cannot ][erect ][temporary]fencing [and raise ][temporary ][sheds ][without ][obtaining ][prior ][permission]from [respondent ][No'2 ][- ][GHMC' ][Therefore' ][if ][the ][petitioners ][want ][to]constfic[] [compound ][wall ][to ][protect ][their ][land ][from ][land ][grabbers']
\
thcy have to [obtain permission ][from ][rcspondent ][No'2 ][and ][construct ][a]compound [wall]
9. ln the light [of ][the said discussion, ][the impugned notice ][dated]30.12.2024 [ol ][respondenl ][No'3 is ][set ][aside' ][However' ][liberty ][is]granted to respondent [Nos.2 ][to 5 ][to take ][fresh ][action' ][if ][any' ][against]the petitioners [strictly ][following ][the procedure ][laid down under law ][by]putting the petitioners [on notice ][and ][affording ][them ][an ][oppornrnity ][of]hearing. ['they ][shall ][also consider ][the ][final notification ][issued ][by ][the]competent [authoriry ][earmarking ][FTL ][of ][Thoutoni ][Kunta ][and]Bhagirathamma [Cheruvu ][and ][direction ][of ][the ][Division ][Rench ][of ][this]Court in Mrs. [L. ][Urmila ][Devi ][v' ][The ][State ][of ][Telanganar']However, [the ][petitioners ][shall ][remove ][the ][temporary ][fencing ][and]temporary [sheds ][in ][the ][subject property ][within ][one ][(01) ][week from]today, failing [which, liberry ][is ][granted ][to ][respondent ][No'3 to ][take]action against [the ]Petitioners.
10. This writ [petition ][is ][accordingly ][disposed ][of' ][In ][the]circumstances [ofthe ][case, ][there shall be no order ][as ][to ][costs']
II
W.l'. No.25702 [ol ][2024 ][& ][Batch. decided on ][23 ]['09'2024]
KI-.Jl\'.P No 370!, of2024
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][an1, ][pending ][in]
this writ petition shall stand closed
SD/- I-. LAKSHMI [BABU]ASSISTREGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//Si c ION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary [MunicipalAdministration. ][and urban ][Development]Department State of ielangana, [Secretariat Hyderabad]Department State of ielangana, [Secretariat Hyderabad]
2. The Commissioner, [Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank ][Bund]Road, HyderabadRoad, Hyderabad
3. The Commissioner, [Hyderabad Disaster Respongg ][and ][Asset ][Protection]Agency (HYDRAA), [Birdha Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad']Agency (HYDRAA), [Birdha Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad']
4. The Executive Engineer, [lnigation ][and CAD Department, l'lorth Tanks]Division, HyderabadDivision, Hyderabad
5. The Mandal Revenue [officer, ][Serilingampally Mandal, RR District Hvderabad]
6. One CC to Ms.DIVYA [RAI SOHNI, Advocate. ][OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP FOR [MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana. [OUT]Telangana. [OUT]
8. One CC to SRI RAPARATHI [VENKATESH, SC FOR ][GHN'4C ][lOPUCl]L One CC to SRI KATIKA [RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC/HYDRAA']toPUClL One CC to SRI KATIKA [RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC/HYDRAA']toPUCl
10. One CC to SRI LAXMALLA [SANDEEP, Sc For ][lnigation ][& ][Command Area]Development. [OPUC]Development. [OPUC]
1'1 .Two CD Copies.
BSK
BSRVk
HIGH COURT
DATED:31 11212024
IHg [SiA]/A/,)I [..,\]1 J ri8 2025\ ?+t)F:t$E
ORDER
WP.No.37099 of [2024]
DISPOSING OF [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]WITHOUT COSTS
*..#.{^w