[ 3183 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 36167 OF 2024

Between:

1. Pulipati Praveen Kumar, S/o Sri. Pulipati Ramaswamy, aged 39 Ye?ls:

-9c-c

business, rio H.No. 5-115t11 Narsimha Reddy Road, Shamshabad, 501218'

Ranga Reddy District,

2, Smt. Muddagouni Vijaya Lakshrni' w/o late Muddagouni Venkatesharn, aged

65 years, occ household

3. Rangam Prashanthi, dio late Muddagouni Venkatesham Aged 40 years' occ

household

4 Muddagouni Gnanoday Goud, s/o late Muddagouni Vankatesham aged 39

years, occ business,

5. Muddagouni Sandeep Goud, S/o late Muddagouni Venkatesham, aged 36

y"rrr, 6"" business, all r/o H-No 11-202, Siddanthi, Shamshabad Village and

Mandal, Ranga ReddY District.

Petitioners No, 2 to 5 are L.R's of LATE MUDDAGOUNI VENKATESHAM

GOUD Since died on 14-02-2023

6. SYED HABEEB, S/o late Syed Ahmed, Aged 66 years, occ business' r/o

H.No. 8-51/1, Siddanti basti, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R Dist'

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (Municipal

Administration), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad'

2. The Shamshabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District' Shamshabad' reptd by

its Commissioner.

3. Project Director, National High ways Authority of lndia (PlU), secunderabad.

4 The Collector, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

E

5. SMT PONNABOINA NIRUPA YADAV, Wo Ponnaboina Prem Raj Yadav,

Aged about 58 years, occ Housewife, R/o H.No.3-2'8451A' Kachiguda,

Hyderabad,50O027

6. Yetti Kumar. S/o Y Nagaiah, Aged 45 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.NO

3-85, Komati Basthi, Near Old Police Station, Shamshabad Village and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dtstrict, 501218.

7. Yetti Lalitha, w/o Yetti Kumar, Aged 38 years. Occupation household, R/o

H NO 3-85, Komati Basthi, Near Old Police Station, Shamshabad Village and

Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, 501218

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased

to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the inaction of the respondent No's 2 in not considering the request of the

petitioners dated 30-09-2024 and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to grant

building permissions.

LA. NO: 1OF2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

2nd Respondent to grant buildrng permission for construction in and over the plot of

land measuring 296 sq yrds or 247.5 Sq. mtrs in Sy. No. 678 of Shamshabad

Village, R.R.District, pertaining to 2 to 5 petitioners on par with the individual plot

owners who have been sanctioned permission in the very same Sy No

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petttion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

2nd Respondent to grant building permission for construction in and over the plot of

land measuring 235 sq. yrds or 196 5 Sq. mtrs in Sy. No. 678 of Shamshabad

Village, R.R.District, pertaining to 6th petitioner on par with the individual plot owners

who have been sanctioned permission in the very same Sy. No.

LA. NO: 3 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

2nd Respondent to grant building permission for construction in and over the plot of

land measurrng 153.00 sq. yrds or 128.03 sq. yrds in Sy. No. 678 of Shamshabad

Village, R R District, pertaining to 1st petitioner on par with the individual plot owners

who have been sanctioned permission rn the very same Sy. No.

A. NO: 4 OF 2024

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the

respondents No.

'2,

3 & 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioners remaining extent of land remaining with them after the

acquisition proceedings.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHYAM SUNDER MURTHY

counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI G. MALLA REDDY'

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

Counsel forthe Respondent No'3: SRI RAMU' SC FOR NHAI

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI ALLAM RAMESH

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI G. RAVI KUMAR

The Court made the following: ORDER

G

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

ATHYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.35157 OF 2024

DATE OF ORDER: 08.05.2025

Between:

Pulipati Praveen Kumar and others

Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana. represented by its

Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration

and [Jrban Development l)epartment, Secretariat,

Hyderabad and others.

. . Respondents

ORDER:(ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the

action of respondents No.2 in not considering their representation dated

30.09 .2024 for construction of room and compound wall encircling open

plot admeasuring 153 square yards in Survey No.678, situated at Harij an

Basthi (Siddanthi), Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, as being illegal. arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of

the open plot admeasuring 153 square yards in Survey No.678, situated at

Harijan Basthi (Siddanthi), Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District having acquired the same under registered gift deed

bearing document No.8675 of 2023 dated 27.10.2023 fiom his brothers

2

Mr. Pulipati Rajkumar and another who in tum acquired the title to the

property by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.6993 of

2008 dated 25.10.2008 from its previous owner Mr. M.Raj Kumar for a

valid sale consideration. It is stated that Mr. M.Raj Kumar acquired an

extent of plot admeasurirg 235 square yards from Mr. Syed Abdul

Rahman Quadri and others for a valid sale consideration vide registered

sale deed bearing document No.196 of 1984 dated 10.01'1984.

Mr. M. Raj Kumar was granted permission for construction of house by

the then Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District vde

GPSBP No.l76l2007-08 dated 05.05.2007, however, due to some

reasons, he could not commence the construction ofhouse'

3. It is stated that petitioners No'2 to 5 are legal heirs of one

Mr. Muddagouni Venkatesham Goud who died on 14.02.2023. It is

stated that Mr. Muddagouni Venkatesham Goud was the absolute owner

and possessor of open plot admeasuring 296 square yards (remaining land

after acquisition) in Survey No.678, situated at Harijan Basthi

(Siddanthi), Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'

That originally Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud had acquired part of property

i.e. open plot admeasuring 370 square yards in Survey No.678 under

-J

3

registered sale deed bearing No.6697 of 1995 dated2g.o2.lg95 from its

previous owner by name Mr. Syed Abdul Rahman euadri for a valid sale

consideration. Another extent of land admeasuring 516 square yards in

Survey No.678 was acquired by Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud under

registered sale deed dated 25.06.1986 executed by Mr. Syed Abdul

Quadri and five (5) others. Thus, Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud became

absolute owner and possessor of open plot admeasuring gg6

square yards

in Survey No.678 out of which, the land admeasuring 590 square yards

was acquired for development of National Highway-7 of Hyderabad to

Bengaluru and Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud was left with land admeasuring

296 square yards as stated above.

4. It is further stated that petitioner No.6 is the absolute owner and

possessor of house constructed on plot

admeasuring 2g0 square yards,

Block No.8, in Survey No.678, situated at Harijan Bathi (Siddanthi),

Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, out of which, an

extent of 280 square yards including structural area admeasuring 45

square yards has been acquired by respondents No.3 and 4 for road

widening. Petitioner No.6 was left with remaining land admeasur ing 235

square yards.

4

5. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), while passing

award dated 26.03.2004 in File No.l/1 516/2001-02, was pleased to refer

the matter to the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. Upon reference and after fulI-fledged trial, the leamed Special

Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989-cum-

VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'trial

Court') was pleased to uphold the title of petitioners No.l to 6, and

consequently rejected the objection raised by Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma,

and permitted the petitioners to receive the compensation amount.

6. It is stated that Mr. Syed Abdul Rehman Quadri and others

acquired the open Plot Nos.1 & 2 admeasuring 5620 square yards situated

at Shamshabad Village, the then Rajendranagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy

District under registered sale deed dated 04.12.1982 bearing document

No.8549 of 1982 from its previous owner Ms. Radha Bai and others for a

valid sale consideration. Ms. Radha Bai and others in tum acquired the

above said Plot Nos.l and 2 admeasuring 7620 square yards from

Mr. Joshi Kistaiah Chary under registered sale deed bearing No.126 of

1962 dated22.05.1962 for a valid sale consideration. While things stood

thus, respondent No.4 placed a-rqquisition proposal before respondent

5

No.3 for acquisition of certain lands situated at Shamshabad Village

(Siddanthi) Shamshabad Mandal for Development of North-South

corridor of I'lyderabad to Bangalore section passing through NH-7 at

Siddanthi, FLro Shamshabad Village. In tum, respondent No.4,

vide refercnce No.G2l528/2001 dated 14.07.2003, has forwarded the

requisition to the office of the LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer

(RDO), Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that

pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents No.3 and

4the LAO had acquired the part of lands from the petitioners for

development ot NH-7 of Hyderabad-Bengaluru for four lining road as

follows

Name ofo\aner/extent

owned

Extent held before acquisitionBalance left after acquisition

2

Pulipati Pravecn Kumar

Land admeasuring 153

square yards = 128.03

square meters rn Survey

No.678. situated at

Siddanrhi- Shamshabad

village under Shamshabad

Municipality and Mandal.

Ranga Reddy I)istrict

bounded:

North: Shamshabad

Village road

South: Open land ol

Venkatesham (loud

East: House ol

E.N.Naveen

West: Main Road. NH-7

Muddagouni V rjala

Lakshmi and 4 others

M.Venkatesharn

M.Raj Kumar

t-and admeasuring 235.00

square yards = 196.5 square

meters in Survey No.678,

situated at Siddanthi,

Shamshabad village under

Shamshabad Municipality and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Village Main road

South: Open land

East: Open land

West: Open land

M.Venkatesham

I-and admeasuring 886.00

yards:740.8uare

Muddagouni Vijaya Lakshmi

and 4 others

M.Venkatesham

sl.

No

Pulipati Praveen Kumar

Land admeasuring 153 square

yards = I28.03 square meters in

Survey No.678, sihrated at

Siddanthi, Shamshabad village

under Shamshabad Municipality

and Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District bounded:

North: Shamshabad Village

road

South: Open land of

Venkatesham Goud

East: House of E.N.Naveen

West: Main Road, NH-7

square

6

Land admeasuring 296.00

square yards = 247.49

square meten in Survey

No.67E, situated at

Siddanthi, Shamshabad

V illage under Shamshabad

Municipality and Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Plot of P.Praveen

Kumar

South: l6 feet road

Easa: Road

West: National Hieh Way

meters in Survey No.678,

sihrated at Siddanthi,

Shamshabad Village under

Shamshabad Municipal ity and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Plot ofJangaiah and Raj

Kumar

South: 16 feet road

East: Road

West: National High Way

Lald admeasuring 296.00

square yards = 247.49 square

meters in Survey No.67E,

situated at Siddanthi,

Shamshabad Village under

Shamshabad Municipality and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Plor ofP.Praveen Kumar

South: l6 feet road

East: Road

West; National High Way

3 Syed Habeeb

Land admeasuring 235.00

square yards = 196.4

squarc me ters in Survey

No.678, situated at

Siddanthi, Shamshabad

Village under Shamshabad

Municipality and Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Neighbour's land

South: do

Esst: Railway line

West: National High Way

Road

Syed Habeeb

Land admeasuring 2t0 square

yards = 234.1 squarc metem in

Survey No.678, situated at

Siddanthi, Shamshabad Village

under Shamshabad

Municipality and Mardal,

Ranga Reddy District bounded:

North: Neighbour's land

South; do

East: Railway line

west: National High way

Road

Syed Habeeb

Land admeasuring 235.00

square yards = 196.4 squre

meters in Survey No.678,

situated at siddanthi,

Shamshabad Village under

Shamshabad Municipaliry and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

bounded:

North: Neighbour's land

South: do

East; Railway line

West: National High Way Road

It is stated that Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma had raised objection

before the LAO allegedly claiming that he is the owner of land

admeasuring Ac.l-02 guntas in Survey No.678, who in turn referred the

dispute to the trial Court and order dated 30.06.2018 was passed in

L.A.O.P. No.450 of 201 1 rejecting the claim of Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma

on the ground that he did not adduce any evidence to establish his title

and moreover, he did not challenge the order dated' 07.06.2007ln

-

7

proceedings No.L/414/2007 passed by the RDO, Chevella and

held Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud and others including Mr. M.Raj Kumar

are entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded by the LAO

7. It is stated that while so, respondent No.5 filed W.P. No.30617 of

2023 before this Court alleging that the authorities of respondent No.l

visited the property on 29.02.2024 and obstructed her to proceed with the

construction activities for which she has explained that she is not

constructing any building except for construction of room for watchman

apart from cornpound wall. It is stated that the property situated in

Survey No.678 were affected in the road widening, in which some of the

houses were dismantled and some of open plots were occupied to the

extent of road lvidening; some of the plot owners like respondent No.5

have modified and reconstructed the structures which were dismantled in

the road widening and some of them have constructed compound wall

along with rooms to protect their lands from the land grabbers. It is

further alleged that respondent No.5 also approached respondent No.1

authorities to accord permission for construction of residential house in

the property which was rejected without assigning any reasons

8

8. It is submitted that petitioners No.l,2 to 5 and 6 respectively

approached the municipal authorities to accord permission for

construction of residential house in the property however, the authorities,

without assigping any reasons, declined to grant permission. It is

submitted that respondent No.5 is claiming to be the owner of land

admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.678 having purchased the

same under registered gift deed bearing No.4883 of 2019 dated

07.03.2019 from Mr. Gaddam Srinivas Yadav, who in-tum purchased the

same from Mr. V.Sudarshna Sharma under a registered sale deed bearing

document No.1282 of 2004 dated 15.03.2004. The RDO, Chevella

cancelled the ORC issued to Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma vide order dated

07.06.2007 in proceedings No.L141412007 which was not challenged by

him. Thus, neither respondent No.5 nor her donor or his predecessor-in-

title by name Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma is having any right or title over

the above said land. It is stated that the order dated 03.11.2023 was

passed by this Court in W.P. No.30617 of 2023 without considering the

provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The said order was challenged in

W.A. No. 1107 of 2024 before a Division Bench of this Court and the

;

9

said writ appeal was disposed of by the order dated 19.09.2024 with an

observation that the petitionersarenot parties to the order dated

03.11.2023 passed by the leamed single Judge. The aforesaid order does

not bind the petitioners. The petitioners/appellants were granted liberty

to file fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 03.11.2023 passed

by the leamed Single Judge or to file an application seeking review of the

said order. That alter disposal of the W.A. No.1107 of 2024,

the petitioners herein had submitted fresh applications dated 30.09.2024

before respondent No. I seeking permission for construction of compound

wall/rooms in their respective lands but no so far, no action has been

taken by respondent No.1, as such, they are constrained to approach this

Court.

9. In the counter aflldavit filed by respondent No.2, while denying the

averments made in the writ affidavit. it is contended that there is title

dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.5 to 7 and there are

several cases pending before the trial Court in respect of the subject

matterRespondent No.2 is not the competent authority to decide title

dispute. As per records, Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma obtained permission

from the Shamshabad Gram Panchayat vide G.P.B.P No.l8212003-04

l0

dated 09.01.2003. W.P. No.30617 of 2023 filed by respondent No.5 was

disposed ofby the order dated 03.11.2023 directing action to be taken to

prevent unauthorized construction from coming into existence. Pursuant

thereto, show cause notices and speaking orders dated 04.12.2023,

13.12.2023 and 23.01.2024 have been issued to the petitioners for

removing the ACC roof and tin shed by following due process of law as

per the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.30617 of

2023. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the Municipal

authorities to accorded permission for construction of residential house

over the property, however, the same was rejected due to title disputes as

per the order dated 03.11.2023. W.A. No.l 107 of 2024 was hled by the

petitioners challenging the order dated 03.11.2023 in W.P. No.30617 of

2023. It is funher stated that the property falls within the area of

G.O.Ms. No.111 dated 08.03.1996 which imposes restrictions on certain

types of development and construction activities. As per the said G.O.,

the construction of residential, commercial or industrial buildings within

a radius of l0 km of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar lakes is strictly

regulated in order to protect the catchment areas and ensure safety of

drinking water sources. Further, it is stated that the petitioners have got

\

1l

no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The permission application of the petitioners was

rejected due to title disputes

10. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.6 and 7, it is stated

that respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the open plot bearing

H.No. I I -23012,'Part admeasuring 1 10 square yards situated at Siddanthi,

Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having acquired

the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.9639 of 2019

dated 15.06.2019 from its previous owner Mr. Koppula Koushik Vardhan

Reddy.

'l'he

vendor of respondent No..6 acquired the premises bearing

H.No.1l-230/2 admeasuring 166 square yards from its previous owner by

name Ms. Koppula Pentamma under registered sale deed bearing

document No.1 190 of 201 I . Further,, respondent No.6 is also the owner

and possessor o1- part of dismantled house bearing H.No.8-2911 part (old)

H.No. I I -3)lllPart, admeasuring 272 sqtare yards, situated at Harijan

Basthi (Siddanthi), Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

document No.5994 of 2018 dated 16.05.2018 from its previous owners by

name Ms. Vanajarana Eath Raj Bai and others for a valid sale

-

t2

consideration who in tum acquired the property total admeasuring 490

square yards Iiom its previous owner by name Mr. Abdul Rahman Quadri

under registered sale deed bearing document No.20 I 7 of 1986.

ll. It is stated that respondent No.7 is the absolute owner and

possessor of part of dismantled house bearing H.No.8-29l1 part (old)

H.No. I I -301 1 /part (new) admeasuring 27 3 square yards having acquired

the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.5995 of 2018

dated 16.05.2018 from one Ms. V.Sushma and others for a valid sale

consideration. After the purchase of the property, the names of

respondents No.6 and 7 were recorded in the municipal records and they

had been paying the property tax in respect of the property. It is

submitted that ORC vide fileNo.Ll4746l93 dated 16.07.1994 issued to

Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Chevella Division vide f/re No.L/414l2007 dated 07.06.2007.

After acquiring the land for development of NH-7 of Hyderabad-

Bengaluru for four lining road and after receiving the objection raised by

Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma, the LAO referred the matter to the dispute to

the trial Court and order dated 30.06.2018 was passed in L.A.O.P. No.450

of 201I rejecting the claim of Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma. It is further

t-

l3

stated that respondent No.5 is claiming ownership over the land

admeasuring Ac.O-18 guntas in Survey No.678 having acquired the same

under registered sale deed bearing No.4883 of 2019 dated 07.03.2019

from Ntlr. Gaddam Srinivas Yadav who in tum acquired the same from

Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma under registered sale deed bearing document

No.1282 of 2004 dated 15.03.2004. Mr. V.Sudershan Sharma, without

having any title over the land admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey

No.678, created documents and the RDO, Chevella cancelled his ORC as

stated above. lt is stated the structures over the property were constructed

long back and they are being repaired. While so, the officials of

respondent No.2 came to the property of respondents No.6 and 7 and

prevented them from elfecting repairs to the structures over the property

on the ground that respondent No.5 filed W.P. No.30617 of 2023 against

them alleging illegal construction being made by them in the land

admeasuring .A.c.1-02 guntas in Survey No.678. The said writ petition

was disposed ofby order dated 03.11.2023 directing respondent No.2 to

prevent unauthorized./illegal construction over the said land. That basing

on the said order, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated

04.12.2023 which was received by the son of respondent No.6;

14

respondent No.6 was out of town and no explanation was submitted to the

said notice. Thereafter, speaking order dated 13.12.2023 was passed by

respondent No.2 which was served on the neighbour of respondent No.6

by name Mr. M.Mallesh and later handed over to respondent No.6 after

lapse ofone (l) month. Challenging the said speaking order, respondent

No.6 filed W.P. No.208l of 2024 and the same was disposed of by order

dated 30.01.2024 direcling respondent No.6 to file appeal turder Section

252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 within a period of sixty

(60) days from the date o receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly,

appeal was preferred by respondent No.6 before the concemed authorities

which was allowed setting aside the speaking order dated 13.12.2023

passed by respondent No.2.

12. Respondent No.5 claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring

Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey no.678, out of Ac.l-02 guntas, situated at

Shamshabad Village and Mandal by virtue of registered gift deed bearing

document No.4883 of 2019 dated 07.03.2019 executed by Mr. Gaddam

Srinivas who purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing

document No.1282 of 2OO4 from Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma. The claim of

respondent No.5 is that Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma was granted patta in

-

15

respect of the land admeasuring Ac.l-02 guntas in Survey No.678 vrde

proceedings No.Ll4746ll993 dated 16.07.1994 issued by the RDO,

Chevella. By alleging that unauthorized constructions are made in the

land admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey No.678, respondent No.5

lodged complaint with respondent No.2 on 20.10.2023. As the complaint

was not acted upon, W.P. No.30617 of 2023 was filed which was

disposed of by the order dated 03.11.2023 directing respondent No.2

herein to prevent any construction if it is being made without any valid

permission; respondents No.6 and 7 were arrayed as respondents No.3

and 4 in the said writ petition.

13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the petitionersareadmittedly not parties to the said writ petition.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 03. t 1.2023 in W.A. No.1 107

of 2024 which was disposed of by the order dated 19.09.2024 by

observing that the petitioners are not parties to W.P. No.30617 of 2023

and the order dated 03.11.2023 does not bind the petitioners, and liberty

was granted to them to file application for review of the said order or file

a fresh writ petition challenging the said order. It is relevant to note the

the petitioners did not choose to file review application/file fresh writ

16

petition, instead, they approached this Court seeking for direction to

respondent No.2 to consider their representation dated 30.09.2024 for

granting permission for construction in respect ofthe subj ect land.

14. It is the contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners that

Mr. M. Venkatesham Goud who is the predecessor-in-title of respondent

No.5 lost title over the subj ect land by virtue of proceedings

No.Ll4746ll993 dated 16.07.1994 issued by the RDO, Chevella. It is

evident from the order dated 07.06.2007, Mr. M. Venkatesham Goud (the

husband of petitioner No.2 and father of petitioners No.3 to 5)

and fourteen (14) others are appellants and Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma is

the respondent. The RDO, Chevella is the original authority, however,

proceedings No.L/41412007 dated 07.06.2007 was surprisingly taken up

as appeal. In paragraph No.2 of the said order, it is stated that the Joint

Collector has remanded the case for passing speaking order. It was

recorded that the RDO,Chevella earlier passed the order dated

16.07.1994 in proceedings No.L/474611993 without issuing notice to the

interested parties and without verifring the physical possession. Further,

it is stated that Mr. Joshi Kistaiah, the father of Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma,

already sold the land admeasuring Ac.l-02 guntas in Survey No.678 to

-

t7

one Ms. Radha Bai under registered sale deed bearing document No.l26

of 1962 dated 22.05.1962. It is further stated that there is no specific

discussion in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey

No.678 in the order dated 20.06.1994 in proceedings No.L/4746l1993

and Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma was held to be out of the possession of the

said land long back prior to 1970 and that the purchaser, Ms. Radha Bai,

sold the land to Mr. M.Venkatesham Goud and others. The claim of

Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma was held to be not maintainable and the order

was passed on 07.06.2007 in proceedings No.L/41412007 issuing

Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of Mr. M. Venkatesham Goud

and others in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-13 guntas and

g3

square yards. Thus, prima facie, respondent No.5 does not have valid title

respect of the land in question. Moreover, the claim of

ln

Mr. V.Sudarshan Sharma in L.A.O.P. No.450 of 2018 was rejected by the

order dated 30.06.2018

I 5. Heard Mr. Shyam Sunder Murthy, leamed counsel for the

petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2; leamed

Standing Counsel for NHAI,appearing for respondent No.3,

Mr. L.Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment pleader

for Revenue,

18

appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Allam Ramesh, leamed counsel for

respondent No.5; and perused the material on record.

16. The limited relief sought by the petitioners is to direct respondent

No.2 to consider their representation for grant of building permission.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, permission is

requiredtosafeguard the subject land and prevent encroachment

However, according to the leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2

and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, the subject land

falls under G.O.Ms. No.1l I and no permission can be granted.

17. It needs to be noted the petitioners have purchased the subject land

under registered documents and their title over the land is not in question

before this Court. It is also not the contention of the Municipality or the

Revenue i.e. respondent No.2 or respondent No.4 that the petitioners do

not have valid title. Maybe there is dispute between the petitioners and

respondent No.5 but as observed in the above paragraphs, the petitioners

have prima facie and better title than respondent No.5 over the subject

land. G.O.Ms. No.l I 1 places restriction on construction in notified

villages which include Shamshabad. There cannot be any denial of the

-

19

fact due to skvrocketing of prices of lands in and around Hyderabad/

Cyberabad areas, it has become difficult for the owners to protect their

respective propeftles.

18. The objectire of G.O.Ms. No.1l1 is to see that there is no

permission granted so as to ensure that there is no obstruction to

catchment of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar water reservoirs.

lf permanent structures are not permitted, then there should be some

mechanism by rvhich the owners can protect their properties. Assuming

construction o1' compound wall would amount to permanent structure,

at least temporary structures Iike ptacing asbestos sheets/pre cast walls

have to be perrnitted. Otherwise, it will not only be difficult for the

owners to sat-eguard their properties but it will also lead to multiplicity of

I itigation and Iegal complications.

19. If a person owns a property in Shamshabad covered by

G.O.Ms. No.l I l, it needs no emphasis to say that it is valuable property

and one needs to have round the clock surveillance to protect his,/her

property. Protecting even a small plot is always a challenge and this is

because of several disputes relating to multiple sale transactions,

20

overlapping of survey numbers, boundary disputes and disputes relating

to illegal layouts etc. It is not as if the parties get solace whenever they

approach concemed Police authorities or civil Court. The agony being

faced by the parties in getting expeditious relief in cases of encroachment

of their properties before the civil courts and Police Stations is a common

phenomenon and needs no special mention. If the property owner cannot

protect his,&rer property and there is not support from the

administrative/Police and Courts in getting efficacious relief, then one has

to introspect where the remedy lies.

20. According to the leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2

and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, review of

G.O.M. No.1 1 I is under active consideration of the present Govemment

and cabinet sub-committee has been constituted for studying the

modification. It is not known when such decision will be taken by the

Cabinet Sub-Committee and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer

because ofthis uncertainty and stalemate for an indefinite period.

21. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents

No.2 to consider the representation dated 30.09.2024 seeking permission

-

21

for construction of compound wall/rooms in the subject land i.eopen

plot admeasuring 153 square yards in Survey No.678, situated at Harijan

Basthi (Siddanthi). Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and

respondents No.5 to 7, and all other concemed/interested persons and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of sixty

(60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Likewise,

the representations, if so, submitted by the petitioners in respect of the

land admeasuring 296 square yards in Survey No.678; 235 square yards

lnSurvey No.678, 153 square yards Survey No.(r78, situated atln

Shamshabad Village, Ranga Reddy District, shall be considered in

accordance with lavu,, w,ithin a period of 60 days from thc date of receipt

ofa copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,, if any, pending in

the writ petition stand closed

SDI.A.H'

ffJ+i:3[][i[

,,TRUE

COPY"

SECTTON

OFFICER

,o,.,

The

princrpal secretary

(Municipal

Administration)'

The state of Telangana'

' s"=",li","iet

irolo.sftje;ffi

habad Municipalitv,

Ransa Reddv

District'

2. The commisstoner' " " " ".^,

.^ A,,+h^ritv of lndia (plU), Secunderabad.

shamshabad

''^iional High ways Authority

o

'1 Proiect Director'

Nat

i[-i?tttii:'wsl}:'sll*r*rnt"?'"s'Er'?v?f

'u''

-=

T One CC to SRI RAMU, SC FOR NHAI

IOPUC]

8. One CC to SRI ALLAM RAMESH, Advocate

[OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI c. RAVI KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC]

10.Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMTNISTRATTON & URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana.

lourl

12.Two CD Copies

BN

BS

w

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810612026

ORDER

WP.No.36167 ot 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

$E

ST

t/v

.)

t

L)

2 I JUf'l 2026

-ar:'/.l

a-r

,.,:)

"e

k--

1to

I{: