SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 53481

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
Sri Nalla Malla Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 15150/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.15150 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in trying to demolish the sheds constructed in the land in Sy.No.59/A, situated at Kachavanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District on 13.05.2025 and also challenging the Notice in Lr.No.2447/Comm./HYDRAA/PRIJ/2025, dated 05.05.2025 issued by the 4th Respondent without having any jurisdiction and without granting sufficient time to submit the explanation and without considering the representation dated 05.05.2025 to grant two weeks time to submit the documents is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners sheds in Sy.No.59/A of Kachavanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, to an extent of Ac.0-35.2 Gts and not to demolish the sheds in the said property and also directed to drop the further proceedings by withdrawing the said notice dated 05.05.2025.”

2. Heard Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-35.2 Gts, in Sy.No.59/A, situated at Kachavanisingaram Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having acquired the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.705 of 1992 dated 30.01.1992, by paying valuable sale consideration. Thereafter, petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. Later, petitioner obtained permission for construction of sheds on an extent of 950 Sq.yards out of Ac.0-35.2 Gts and constructed the sheds. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat allotted H.No.4-54 and the petitioner was paying property tax to the said Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the said Gram Panchayat was merged into respondent No.5 Municipality and the petitioner is now paying the property tax to respondent No.5.

4. While things stood thus, the respondent No.4 issued impugned notice bearing Lr.No.2447/Comm./HYDRAA/Prij/2025, dated 05.05.2025 and directed the petitioner to furnish the relevant documents for verification, within in a period of three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 05.05.2025, made a representation and requested respondent Nos.4 and 5 to grant two weeks time to submit the relevant documents. However, respondent Nos.3 to 5, did not grant the time and on 13.05.2025, the officials of respondent Nos.3 to 5 tried to demolish the sheds which were constructed on the subject property in the year 2007. The said action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner, without submitting the requisite documents as stated in the notice dated 05.05.2025, approached this Court with an intention to protract the litigation in one way or the other.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that he is sailing on the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of material available on record it reveals that the petitioner is claiming the right over the subject property pursuant to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top