2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37410
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
Kudikala Rajaveeru – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/28176/2018
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.28176 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the house bearing H.No.3-30 together with appurtenant land to an extent of 169 sq. yards towards western side of his house/land situated at Chelpur Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, for the purpose of road widening/Mission Bhageeratha, without issuing any notice and without following due procedure as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.H.No.3-30 along with appurtenant land to an extent of 169 sq. yards situated at Chelpur Village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District having acquired from his father and paying house tax and electricity charges regularly. The respondents are interfering and trying to demolish the house of petitioner on western side along with appurtenant land for the purpose of widening road from 8’ to 13’ feet by laying CC road as well as mission Bhageeratha pipelines without following the procedure of acquisition. He further submits that the respondents have already demolished the compound wall as well as bathrooms of the house of petitioner without following due procedure and now, they are interfering with the possession of the petitioner over his house by laying CC road as well as pipe lines towards western side of his house situated on the tamarind tree line via Dr. Buchi Babu’s house.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have laid CC road as well as electricity pole and interfered on western side of his house bearing No.3-30 together with open land into one feet by laying CC road at the point of Tamarind Tree and also interfered ½ feet of his entire compound area of his open land from tamarind tree to his house and also interfered with the western side of his house and he also filed C.C.No.1534 of 2019 and the same is pending. He further submits that petitioner never gave consent to the respondents nor any notice was issued to him and the alleged notice dated 20.04.2018 shows house bearing H.No.3-29, which is not the subject matter of this writ petitioner, and requested to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, based on the counter averments, submits that when the authorities have proceeded for road widening into 20 feet by laying C.C. roads as well as water supply pipe lines under Mission Bhageeratha, the compound walls/structures and open yards etc., were affected and the petitioner has given declaration that he will remove his wall voluntarily within seven days, otherwise he has no objection if the Gram Panchayat remove the wall. He further submits that with the consent of the petitioner, the respondents have demolished the affected portion of his house on 20.06.2018 i.e, prior to filing of the writ petition, and they are not interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over his house property and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat, based on the counter averments, submits that with the consent of the petitioner, the authorities, while laying CC road, have demolished the little bit wall of bathrooms of the house of petitioner and the petitioner has renovated and repaired the bathrooms and there is no interference over the house of the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that without the consent of the petitione