WP/28413/2014 of Osmania Graduates Association Vs The Dy. Commissioner, on 29 January 2026

ORDER

'I'his writ petition is filed seeking the lollowing retiefTs ''...1o issue a writ, order or direction nore particularll,, one in the nature ry' nrunduntus declaring lhe intpugned proceadings in ROC. N o. UC/09/7-P S/W- No. 2 6/C ir. I/WMC/2 0 t 1. dated I 2. 08. 2 0 I I of t he I't respondenl as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdicrion, ultro virus lhe provisions of the Hyderabad Municipalitics Act, 1955 and the rules made lhera under and consequeniy set-aside lhe sante, in the interesl of law and ) .SCR,J l .P.l'o 2811 J of2011 .luslre

2. Heard Mr'.Pannala Srinivas, leamed counsel i r the petitioner and Mr.Pasharn Mohit, leamed Standing Counr;, I lor GWMC representing resltondent No. l. There is no representat c,lt on behatf of respondent Nos.6 to 8 despite service ofnotice. Perus: I the record

3. The briel facts of the case are that, the I'r r.spondent, vide impugned proccedings dated 12.08.2014, has dir rored the writ petitioner for dernalcation of the boundaries in beta een the survey Nos.757 & 760 in the presence of Town Plann r g; Olficials of Warangal Municipal Corporation within (7) days 1-.,,rn the date of receipt of the irnpugned notice, so as to enable thenr to take further action in that rcgard, laiting which further action u,i I be initiated as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Munlcipal Corpor: .ion Act, 1955.

4. The main grievance of the writ petition,: is thal. the st respondent does not have any jurisdiction to r irect the writ petitioner to get surveyed the land of the writ petitiot,r r at the behest of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 on the grourr I that the writ petitioner encroached their land in survey Nos.75 7 &. 760 by constructing a compound wall un-authorizedly.

SCRJ ll/. P.No.28413 of 2014

5. The said matter has come before this Court and this Court vide orders dated 07.10.20 l4 IN WPMP.No.35572l20l4, has granted intenm suspension, rvhich reads as fbllows: " Heard the learnetl counsel .for the pelitioner an(! Sri.D.Bhuskur Reddy, learned standing counsel ftsr I't re.spondent- Mu n i c i pal C o rpo rot i on. The grievunce of petitbner is that the impugned endorsement dt. 12.08.2014 of l"t respondent directed the petitioner b gel danarcated the boundaries between Sy.No.757 and 760 in the prascnce of Tou'n Planning OJficials of the I't respontlent-Municipal ( orporalion, printa-facie, anounts lo inte*ring in a boundary di:;pute belv'ee n petitioner arul respondent Nos.6 to 8. 'lhe l"' respondenl-Municipal Corporation is nol vesred with uny .jurisdiction under the Greater Hyderabacl Municipul ('orporation Act. 1955 lo exercise jurisdiction of lhis nature. l-lrcrefctre. tlrcrc shall be inlerim suspension as prayed [or. "

Now the l'' respondent has filed a counter stating that on the objection raised by the respondent No.8 regarding the construction of the compound walt by the petitioner-association, is said to be made in their land in Sy.Nos.757 & 760 of Hanamkonda Village, the respondcnt-Corporation had issued an endorsement vide Roc.No. UC/09/TPS/W. No.26 I Cir -IIWMC I 20 1 4, dated 12/ 081 20 I 4 to [he petitioner association to demarcate the subject property as on ground fbr taking further course of action in the matter. Further, it is .- \

- -'ri

SCR,J I P.N'o.28111 of20l1 stated that after receipt of the respondent's endorsrrt tent, instead of getting demalcating the subject land the petitioner as-s ),jiarion straight away approachcd this Court and Illcd the present writ , t.rition.

7. In the light of thc above f-acts, evidently, it appr rrs that the said endorsement dated 12.08.2014 was issued at thc rstance of the private person i.e., Mr.Gaddam Kattaiah and on lehalf of other unofficial respondents herein. The entire exerci:j(: :i'.arted at the instance of a complaint given by private persons r r get the land surveyed. The endorsenrent ol the l'r respondent r; nothing but contrary to the procedure contemplated by the Hyder rbad Municipal Corporation Act. 1955 or'Ihe Telangana Municipa iies Act, 2019. The l't respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to er Lr:rtain the civil disputes betu.een the petitioner and the unofficial r: pondents. The entire procedurc is nothing bur exceeding their jurisc i )t.ion and more so the impugned endorsernent of the l" respondent is L tcalled for and calls for interlcrence of this Court.

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned pro t:edings dated 12.08.2014 is nothing but per se illegal and withour i rrisdiction and liable to be set-aside.

.SCR,J ll'.P.No 28113 of20l1

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 12.08.20r4 tn ROC.No.UC/09/'[PS/W.No.26lC.ir.IIWMCl20l4 issued by the l tt rcspondent arc hercby set-aside. There shatl be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' Witness the Hon'ble the Crti"iltr"ii"" ApARESH KUMAR SINGH' on this Thursday, the Twentieth aay'oi tvtarctt' Two Thousand and Twenty five' To //TRUE COPY// 'l . The Dy. Commissioner, Circle-1' Kashibugga' Wara Munic, SD/. C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER pal Corporation,

3.

4.

5. Warang al. 532 222 The Collector, Warangal District Warangal 506 002 The Tahsildar, Hanam konda Mandal, Warangal District 506 002 The Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records, O/o. the Collector, Warangal District SA GJP i[19:'3sLt'JE3{E?vEi,'JElft Ef; 'E8"?liiil'.y&fl %?f;"3"',%""' T;a""5t',3r,"(3""'loR H.ME, High courr for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. b"l'#:l:BElEt!ilthi-i&l]}in'."f,t"ii'^li,tTJr?*,",pALCoRp)Advocate toPUCl

10. Two CD Copies v

HIGH COURT DATED:2910112026

ORDER

WP.No.28413 ot 2014 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 'll ,i-) s it t i) r i 7i)?';

)lTC s ru t;i'