2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40245
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
G. Vaman Goud – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 32041/2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.32041 OF 2025
O R D E R:
With the consent of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-
“... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice in file No.A/134/2016-2025, dated 13-10-2025 proposing to demolish the shops constructed by the petitioners in Sy.No.40 at Madanapuram village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District though the said land is not part of any market yard land in Sy.No.39 and further though the above shops were being constructed by duly obtaining construction permissions from the Grampanchayat, Madanapuram and further though the petitioners have already submitted all their documents and explanation to the above notice, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry in the matter as contemplated under the provisions of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by duly considering all the ownership documents submitted by the petitioners in proof of their ownership of the shops constructed in Sy.No.40, and pass such other order or orders.”
3. Heard Mr.M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the land in Sy.No. 40/1/2/Al belonged to Boya Chennaiah, Boya Krishnaiah and others; that they got converted the same into non-agriculture land and divided it into plots; that accordingly, Plot No.1/A admeasuring 111 Sq. yards was purchased by petitioner No.1 by way of registered sale deed document No.1957/2021, dated 18-10-2021; that subsequently, the petitioners obtained construction permission on 08-01-2024 and raised shops on the main road which leads from Madanapuram to Atmakur; that the petitioners got assessed the same in the Grampanchayat records as shops and they have been paying the property tax to the Grampanchayat; that presently the tenants of the petitioners have been running medical, welding, electrical and fast food centers respectively; that the petitioners constructed the said shops during the year 2021 by following the approved plan of the Gram Panchayat; that respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice in File No.A/134/2016-25 dated 13-10-2025 by alleging that the petitioners have unauthorizedly occupied the market yard land of Government in Sy.No.39 and constructed the shops on the main road; that the shops of the petitioners are within the land covered by land in Sy.No.40 which is abutting to Sy.No.39 which belongs to the Market Yard; that while making the construction activity of the above shops by obtaining construction permissions, the market committee has not objected the construction and however, after expiry of nearly about four (4) years, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 13.10.2025 based on the adverse news item published in the Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 01-10-2025 to the effect that the petitioners belonged to BRS party, encroached upon market yard land in Sy.No.39 and made constructions of the shops; that respondent No.4 without conducting the survey, by issuing notice to the petitioners, issued the impugned notice basing on the news item appearing in the local newspaper being influenced by the local political leaders. Hence, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted their explanation to the impugned notice on 16-10-2025 along with all the relevant documents to show that the petitioners have not encroached upon any market yard land in Sy.No.39. He states that respondents are threatening to demolish the shops of the petitioners without following due pro