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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18263

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


WRIT PETITION No.5032 of 2020.


Dated: 10.06.2026


Between:

Maddineni Venkaiah Naidu and Another

…Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,

Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents

: ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction of the petitioners over plot no.6 (part), 7(part), 8, 9 and 10 (part) situated at Nizampet village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority.

2. Heard Sri I.V.Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that one E.Indrasena Reddy, Freedom Fighter, was assigned land admeasuring Ac.7.36 guntas in Survey No.109, Nizampet village by the government vide Patta Certificate No.B6/6497/78, dated 16.09.1979; that the said E.Indrasena Reddy alienated an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas out of Ac.7.36 guntas to M.Ravinder Reddy vide Sale Deed No.13462/2003 dated 26.03.2003; that Indrasena Reddy alienated an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas in favour of P.Sailaja Reddy, vide Sale deed No.13463/2003 dated 26.03.2003; that the said Indrasena Reddy executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide document No.13464/2003 dated 26.03.2003 in favour of M.Ramu in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas out of Ac.7.36 guntas, who in turn executed Sale Deed vide document No.13872/2003 dated 03.11.2003 alienating the said land i.e. Ac.3.00 guntas, in favour of Y.Manohar. Thus, the said Indrasena Reddy alienated the entire extent of Ac.7.36 guntas assigned to him under Freedom Fighters quota.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that M.Ravinder Reddy, P.Sailaja Reddy and Y.Manohar, executed GPAs in respect of Ac.1.00 guntas, Ac.1.36 guntas and Ac.3.00, respectively, totaling to Ac.5.36 guntas out of Ac.7.36 guntas, in favour of J.Ramaraju; that M.Ravinder Reddy, P.Sailaja Reddy and Y.Manoher, through his GPA holder J.Rama Raju, alienated northern part of Plot No.6 to an extent of Ac.53.33 square yards, Plot No.7, 8 and 9 admeasuring 284.44 square yards each and northern side of Plot No.10 to an extent of 53.33 square yards total admeasuring 960 square yards in Sy.No.109, situated at Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, under registered Sale deed bearing No.681/2006, dated 10.01.2006; that petitioner No.1 after purchasing the above said property gifted the northern side of Plot No.6 to an extent of 26.67 square yards and part of Plot No.7 to an extent of 213.33 square yards, total admeasuring 240 square yards in favour of petitioner No.2 under registered Gift Deed No.3236/2015, dated 13.03.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioners constructed a compound wall around the land purchased by them and the same was demolished by the revenue authorities without any notice and without following due procedure. Therefore, the petitioners filed WP.No.17337/2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 02.06.2016 directing the respondents not to interfere or demolish any compound wall or structures erected by the petitioners in the subject property, without following due process of law and also directed the respondents therein to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the petitioner; that both the petitioners applied for the approval of plan for construction and the authorities had approved the same vide permit No.B1/BP/15/N/NMC/2020 dated 17.01.2020.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have obtained permission for construction from concerned authorities and have commenced construction in accordance with sanctioned plan; that respondent No.4 without any notice and without following the due process of law has interfered with the construction and aggrieved by same present writ petition is filed.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader by referring to counter filed on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted that the subject land is classified as “Sarkari Poramboke” as per revenue records and the petitioners cannot claim the same to be pri

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