Telangana High Court
WA/1522/2025 of Kanneboina Ailaiah Vs State of Telangana on 31 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA ANO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1522 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the
[ 34er ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
ANO
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1522 OF 2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preffered agianst the Order Dated 16-10-2025 in W.P.No 3987 of 2024 on lhe file of the High Court.
Between:
1. Kanneboina Ailaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, Aged about 59 years, R/o. H. No.5-2613, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle, Hanamkonda District, Telangana - 5O5471
2. Kanneboina Purnachand, S/o. Kanneboina Ailaiah, Aged about 25 years, R/o.
H. No. 5-2613, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle, Hanamkonda District, Telangana - 505471
...APPELLANTS
AND
State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad Commisioner of Panchayat, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.
3. Joint Commisioner of Panchayat, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana
4. The Diskict Collector, I_lanamkonda District, Telangana
5. The District Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana
6. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana.
7.. Mandal Panchayat Officer, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District.
Telangana.
8. Mandal Parishad Development Office, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangana
9. Gram Panchyat, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District. Telangana.
10. Panchyat Secretary, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle lv lndal, Hanamkonda District. Telangana
11. Maddela Kumaraswamy, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Rasoolpa I Village, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District. Telrl rgana
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 2 OF 2O2s
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ; cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co- t may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 16.10.2025 in WP No. 3987 of 2(': 4lo the limited extent of the direction issued to the Mandal Surveyor to condr t survey and fix the boundaries of the property of both parties as a pre-conl tion for taking action against the illegal construction undertaken by Responder No. 11 and thereby direct the Respondent No. 10 to immediately take action lor' rrds demolition of the illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No. 11 over :l e Subject Property, Counsel for the Appellants:SRl. MOHAMMED OMER FAR( OQ
Counsel for the Respondents No 1,2,3,5 To 8: SRI P. ASH( KKUMAR,AGP
FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAI. DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel forthe Respondents No9& 10: SRl. K. PRADEEF REDDY,SCFOR
GRAM PANCI AYAT
Counsel for the Respondent No 11 : SRI R.K. CHITTA
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HON'BLE WSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
wA.NO.1522 0F 2025
DATE:31.12.2O25
Between:
Kanneboina Ailaiah,
S/o. Laxmaiah and another.
Appellants
And
State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment,
Secretadat, Hyderabad and 1O others.
Rcspondents
Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel appearing for the appcllants Mr. P. Ashok Kumar, the learned Assistant Governrnent Pleadcr appearing lor the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, the learned Standing Counscl appeanrlg for the respondent Nos.9 and 10.
Ivlr. R K Chitta, leamed counsel appcaring for thc rcspondent No. I I
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.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justrce Moushumi Uhattacharyal
1. The Writ Appeal arises out o[ an ordcr passeci b]. er learned Single Judge of this Court on i6.1O.2O25 in Writ Petition No.3987 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein.
2. In the Writ Petition, the appcllants prayed for a Writ of lMandamus against the respondcnt No.lO/Panchayat Secretary, .\
3. 81' the impugned order, the learned Singlt: .ludge rccordcd several facts, incluciing that the building permissi() L grantcd to thc rcspondcnt No.11 was subsequently cancelled b., l_he respondcnt No..-/thc DLstrict Panchayat Officer, Hananr oncla t)istrict, 1'clangana, and that the respondent No.10 shoutd - rn<:<. havc Lakcn ac t ion for the demolition ol the illegal construction . Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle Maldal, Hanarr Telangana, in not taking any action, including for the alleged illegal construction carried out b] No. 1 1/unofh<:ial respondent in respect of a i S1'.No.246 aL Rasoolpally Village (formerly V r Bheemade varpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda Distnc t spite of sevr:ral complaints/ representations and communications from the respondent No.5. 4 . Thc lcarned Single Judge also directed the IVLI conduct a sutvey and fix the boundaries of the prc parties, i.e., the u'rit petitioners/appellants and No. 1 1, withir. a stipulated period ald hle a cor Thereafrer, tl-e respondent No. lO was directcd tt accordance wr[h the directions of the respondent N< Authorities q,,:re also given the liberty to seek po.: required. koncla District, he demolition of the respondent nd situated i r-r llararn Village), Tclangana, in rlso the official rdal Survcyor to :rty ol bolh the -he respondent plizrnce report. ta k<: action in
5. Tl're Survey :c assistance if .) l
// J
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondent No.10 to take action regarding the alleged illegal construction, subject to the survey being conducted by the Mandal Surveyor as per the directions of the respondent No. 5.
6. Counsel submits that both the actions should have been treated as independent obligations and that action against the illegal construction could not have been made dependcnt on the survcl, which was directed by the respondent No.5 to be conducted by the Mandal Surveyor.
7. Learned counsel appearing lor thc respon(lcnt No. I 1/unoflicial respondent informs the Court thal- as ol yestcrdzry., thc survey has already been conducted and that nothing furthcr rcmains of the Writ Appeal.
8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.l, 2, 3, 5 to 7 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9 and 1O submit that a cop]'of the Survey Report will be handed over to the appe[ants/writ petitioncrs without delay.
9. Considering the fact that the survey has already bccn undertaken as directed by the learned Single Judge and that such direction was made at the request of the appellants/writ petitioncrs who appeare(l in person before the learned Singl: Judge, we do not find any sc)pe to interfere with the impugned cr rer. At best, thc appellants/ petitioners shafl be given a copy of the I urvey Report. l0 We also note that the dispute is essentially c .a private naturc and arises bctween the appellants/writ petloners and [hc rcsponclent 'rkr. I 1. wherein the contesting parties e re clairning to bc thc ou'ncrs of thc land bearing the Sy.No.246 of Rasoolpally Village.
11. W.A.No. )i22 of 2025, alongwith all connect: I applications, rs accordingly clismissed as being without merit. Therc slt:rll be no order as to costs. SdIA.V.S. PRASAD IEPUW REGISTRAR same sur\ :y number, i.c.. To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ Advo: ,te [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ligh Court for the State of T elangana. [OUT]
3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the SL te of Telangana a[ Hyderabad [OUT]
4. OneCC to SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY, sc FoR GRAM PAN'I IAYAT, [oPUC]
5. One CC to SRI R.K. CHITTA , Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CD Copies DAN PMK b
i i I , , I ! I I t I HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025
JUDGMENT
WA.No.1522 of 2025 : STA]E H ,a' 10i:B?0?6 C' <) DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS * F.l