IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that illegal constructions must be demolished to uphold the rule of law and compliance with judicial orders.

ORDER :

(K. Sarath, J.) :

1. The subject property involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same and therefore they are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed.

2. Heard Sri Balakisti Srinivas Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13500 of 2023, Smt.Vineela, learned Counsel representing Sri Y.Vijaya Bhasker Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.20603 of 2023, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayath appearing for the official-respondents in both the writ petitions.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.13500 of 2023 are taken as leading case and the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in this Writ Petition.

4. The petitioners are questioning the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not stopping the illegal construction being carried out by the unofficial respondent No.8 and to direct the official respondents to demolish the same.

5. After receiving the notices in W.P.No.13500 of 2023, the respondent No.8 filed W.P.No.20603 of 2023 questioning the Notice dated 05.05.2023 issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, wherein it was directed the respondent No.8 to remove/demolish the house constructed in the subject plot.

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13500 of 2023

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners and the respondent No.6 have jointly inherited a house site admeasuring 176 Sq.Yards i.e. H.No.1-5-5/5 (new) : 5-5 (Old) from their father, who died intestate, situated at Doulatabad village and Mandal of Siddipet District. Subsequently when the petitioners demanded for partition of the house site and house property, the respondent No.6 denied and behind back of the petitioners, the respondent No.6 created a gift settlement deed in favour of his son/respondent No.7, who in turn created a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.8.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the month of March, 2023 when the respondent No.8 was cleaning the house site No.1-5-5/5 with an intention to take up construction work, the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent Nos.3 to 8 along with others in O.S.No.89 of 2023 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, for partition and also sought the reliefs to declare the gift settlement deed executed in favour the respondent No.7 and subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.8 as null and void. The Trial Court granted interim orders of status quo against the respondent No. 6 and 8 herein in I.A.No.124 of 2023 in O.S.No.89 of 2023 on 24.01.2023. In spite of there being status quo order, the respondent No.8 took up the construction activity and therefore the petitioners filed a representation to the official-respondent Nos.2 to 5 on 31.03.2023 with a request to stop the construction work being made by the respondent No.8. Again the petitioners made a representation to the District Collector on 08.05.2023 and then the District Collector directed the respondent No.4/MPDO not to allow the illegal construction by the respondent No.8, even then the respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not stop the respondent No.8 from illegal construction.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondent No.8 calling upon her to stop the illegal construction, which is in violation of status quo orders passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.124 of 2023 in O.S.No.89 of 2023. Even after receiving the said legal notice, the respondent No.8 did not stop the construction work and further expedited the construction activity. Thereafter the petitioners filed interlocutory application seeking Police protection and also to punish the respondent No.8 for willful violation and disobedience of the Court order dated 24.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2023 in O.S.No.89 of 2023. The respondent No.8 fi