WP/1934/2026 of Nagelli Shreedhar Vs The State of Telangana on 22 June 2026

ORDER

This \Urlt Petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings vide Lr.No.DEE/lSD-2/Nallabeili /27, vide Lr.No.DEE /ISD- 2/Nallabelli./28, vide Lr.No.DEE/ISD-2/Nallabelti/18, vide Lr.No.DEE /ISD-2/Nallabelli/26, vide Lr.No.DEE /ISD- 2/Nallabelli/13, vide Lr.No.DEE /lSD-2/Na[abelli/3, vide Lr.No. DEE/ISD-2/Nallabelli/14, and some of the petitioners did not get any notices from the 7th respondent dated t7.OL.2OZ6, 07.01 .2026, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice, and as well as the fund.amental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents not to intefere/ demolition the petitioners from their respective properties residences without following due process of law without conducting survey without call for objections/clarification from the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr.Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Laxmalla Sandeep Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are residents of the 9th respondent village since decades and are dependent on agriculture and traditional occupations for their livelihood. It is submitted that during the implementation of the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) Stage-III Canal, portions of the petitioners'agricultural lands and residential properties were acquired for public purposes. The petitioners continue to reside in the remaining portions of their house sites under registered title deeds and have been regularly paying property taxes.

4. It is contended that the impugned demolition notices were issued by respondent Nos.6 and 7 without jurisdiction, without conducting any survey or enquiry, and without issuing prior show-cause notices or affording an opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel submits that the notices were issued under political influence and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel further contended that the proposed demolition would deprive the petitioners of their residences and livelihood, causing irreparable loss and hardship. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the panchayat Raj Act, violative of Articles 14, 2L and 300-4 of the Constitution of India, and inconsistent with the law governing demolition proceedings. Therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to restrain from taking coercive action except in accordance with due process of law.

-

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that the impugned notices had already been duly served on the petitioners. He further contended that, despite service of the notices, the petitioners have not submitted any explanation or objections till date. Therefore, according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioners cannot complain of violation of the principles of natural justice and are at liberty to submit their replies before the competent authority.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit their replies/explanations to the impugned notices within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such replies, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Till such exercise is completed and orders are passed by the competent authority, the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the petitioners' possession of the subject properties. However, the ) petitioners shall not undertake any further construction or create any third-party rights in respect of the subject properties during the said period. I With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. T.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Departme Secretariat building, Hyderabad State of Telangana. The Engineer in Chief, ( O and M ) Operation and Maintenance lrrigation projects, Telangana Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. The Project Director, Sri Ram Sagar Project ( SRSP) Warangal, Warangal District. The District collector, Warangal, Warangal district. The Superintendent Engineer, lrrigation Department, Warangal, Warangal District The Divisional Engineer, Division -lll, Narsampet, Warangal District. The Sub Engineer, Sub Division -ll, Nallabelly Nallabelly Mandal, Warangal District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District. The Village Secretary Nallabelli Village and Mandal, Nallabelli Gram Panchayat, Warangal District. The Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Nallabelli Warangal District. One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP [OPUC] Two CD Copies To

J

o

PSK. PSK M

HIGH COURT DATED: 2210612026 CC TODAY \f. S rAfF o 2 J JUN 2U26 1\ ( q -)o

.b

ORDER

WP.No.1934 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. -a= , ) t ) i:,j qI t \4 'tb ,,.iil'