Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23120
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Bommineni Avinash Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/33371/2024
The court affirmed that authorities must follow due legal procedures before dispossessing individuals from property, especially in cases of unauthorized construction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition concerning property disputes - Petitioners claimed ownership of property based on registered gift deeds and challenged demolition by authorities without due process - Respondents instructed to refrain from dispossessing petitioners without following legal procedures. (Paras 2, 8)
(B) Property Law - Unauthorized construction - Petitioners acknowledged that construction was unauthorized due to lack of permission from local authority - Court directed petitioners not to construct without obtaining necessary permissions. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed ownership of property based on registered gift deeds and reported unauthorized demolition of their structures by respondents. They also filed a suit for injunction against third parties interfering with their possession.
Findings of Court:
Respondents were directed not to dispossess petitioners without due process, while petitioners were advised to resolve title disputes in ongoing civil suit.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the legality of the demolition of the petitioners' construction and the procedural rights concerning property possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of following due legal procedures before dispossessing individuals from their property rights, affirming that unauthorized constructions must be addressed through proper channels.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel representing Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.
2 . Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of Plot No.112, admeasuring 226.23 Sq. yards each (out of 452.45 Sq. yards) in Sy.Nos.146 and 147, situated at Sripuram Colony, Nagaram village and municipality, Keesara mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri district, on the strength of registered gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos.11439 and 8832 of 2022, dated 06.09.2022 and 04.07.2022 respectively. They have constructed compound wall and also shed in the subject plots. Respondent No.2 demolished the said compound wall and shed without following due procedure laid down under law.
Respondent No.3 also assisted respondent No.2 in the said demolition. Now, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following due procedure laid down under law. Challenging the said action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3 . Perusal of the record would reveal that there are disputes between petitioners and one Mr.Majeti Venugopal and three others with regard to the subject property. According to the petitioners, they have interfered with the possession of the petitioners over the said property. Therefore, petitioners filed a suit vide O.S.No.684 of 2024 against them seeking injunction.
Trial Court granted interim injunction. The said suit is pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting.
4 . On the complaints lodged by Mr.A. Upender Reddy, Mr.Devasoth Trivikram Rathod and Mr.V. Baburao, respondentNo.3 passed an order dated 13.06.2023 directing them to approach competent forum. Vide proceedings dated 27.05.2023 learned Additional Collector (Local Bodies), Medchal-Malkajgiri, also advised Mr.Devasoth Trivikram Rathod, to approach Civil Court since there are serious title disputes.
5 . Father of the petitioners lodged a complaint with Police, Keesara Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.486 of 2024 against Mr.Venu Gopal and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 324(5) and 329(4) r/w.3(5) of B.N.S. Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.20124 of 2022, filed by Mr.A. Upender Reddy and two others, is also pending before this Court.
6 . The afore-stated facts and perusal of the record would reveal that father of the petitioners did not obtain permission from the then Gram Panchayat / respondent No.3 Municipality, for construction of compound wall and shed. Therefore, the said compound wall and shed is un- authorized construction. Even, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already demolished the said un-authorized construction, compound wall and shed. Now, they are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property without following due procedure laid down under law.
7 . Whereas, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, have submitted written instructions of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already demolished the compound wall and shed constructed by the petitioners un-authorizedly. They will not interfere with the inter se disputes between petitioners and others. The said written instructions are placed on record.
8 . In the light of the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following due procedure laid down under law.
