THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3121 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not taking any action and not passing any order on the legal notice dated 02.01.2015, in respect of land in Sy.Nos.943 and 947, admeasuring Acs.7.26 guntas, situated at Katarampur in Karimnagar, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri Ram Chander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Siddharth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s mother Late Pochamma is the eldest daughter of Nagula Sayanna, who was the pattadar and owner of the land in Survey No.943 and 947 admeasuring Ac.7.26 guntas, situated at Kattarampur in Karimnagar (for short ‘subject property’); that petitioner’s mother being a class-I heir of Late Sayanna was entitled to a share in the subject property; and that upon the death of Pochamma, the petitioner being her son is also entitled to a share in the subject property. However, two suits were filed vide OS.No.17 of

1996 and OS.No.26 of 1996 by other legal heirs of Late Sayanna for partition and separate possession of their shares before the III Additional District Court at Karimnagar, without including the petitioner as party to the said suits and a preliminary decree was passed in the said suits. After coming to know of passing of preliminary decree, the petitioner herein filed applications vide IA.No.628/2014 in OS.No.17/1996 and IA.No.629/2014 in OS.No.29/1996 to revise the preliminary decree passed in OS.No.17/1996, dated 30.09.2013 and OS.No.26/1996 dated

30.09.2013. The said applications are pending adjudication.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile, the decree holders in the preliminary decree have alienated a portion of the subject land to third parties, and based on such alienation, they are approaching the 2^nd respondent seeking permission for layout. He further submits that the petitioner has issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2015 to the 2^nd respondent praying not to sanction any lay out permission in view of the claim of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands. However, the 2^nd respondent has neither taken any action nor passed any orders.

Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the authorities will follow due process while granting layout permission, including verifying the prima facie title and possession of the party approaching the authority for such permission.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that approval of layout or permission if any by the 2^nd respondent will be subject to outcome of the suits in OS.No.17 of 1996 and OS.No.26 of 1996 pending on the file of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 25.09.2025 tk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3121 of 2015 Dt.25.09.2025 tk