Sri Muppalla Narendra Babu v. The State Of Telangana

[ 32e61 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 36868 OF 2024 Between:

Sri Muppalla Narendra Babu, S/o M. Raghavaiah, Aged about 39 years Occ. Business, Fl/o Q No.935AB, BHEL Township, General Hospital, R.C. Puram, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

,..PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy Sanga Reddy District

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy Division Sanga Reddy District

4. The Tahsildar, Ameenpur Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in issuing impugned notice Vide No.8157612023 dated 0310412024 to the petitioner who is affected party being absolute owner and possessor of houses constructed in the Plot No.232 admeasuring 150 Sq Yards in Sy No.345 to 350 and 357 to 360, situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District by stating that the constructions are in Sy. No.343, without conducing any land survey and without demarcating Sy No. 343 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural Justice, apart from violation of Articles 14 and 300-,4 of Constitution of lndia and to set-aside the impugned nolice- 8.157612023 dated 0310412024

lA NO: 1 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 suspend the impugned notice Vide No. 8157612023-20 dated 0310412024 and direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's house building in Plot No. 232 admeasuring 150 Sq yards in Sy No. 345 to 350 and 357 to 360, situated at Ameenpur Village and [\ilandal. Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36868 OF 2o24 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed with thc following relief:- '. . .lo issue wit, order or dvectlon more partict arlg one in the nalure of Wit of Mandamus declaring the act[on of the respondent No4 irt issuing impugned totice uide No.B/576/2O23 dated 03.04.2024 to the petitioner tuho is affected partg being absolute owner and possessor of houses consttucted in the PIot No 232 admeasunng 15O Sq.gards in Sy.No.345 to 35O and 357 to 360, situated at Ameenpur Village & Mandctl, Sangareddy thstrtct bg stating that the constructiotls are in 5g.No.343, uithout conducting ang land surueg and without demarcating Sg.No.343 is iLlegal, arbttrary and utolation of pnrLciples of Notural Justice, apart frotn violcttion of Articles 14 ctnd 300 A of Constitution oI India and to set aside the impugned notice B/ 576/ 2023 dated 03.04.2O24 and to pass such other order or orders as thls Hott'ble Court mag deerrt fi.t ctttd proper in the interest of luslice'.

2.

Considered the submissions o[ the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admrssion stage.

3.

It is stated that the petitioner has purchased plot bearing No.241, admeasuring l50 square yards in Sur-vey Nos.345 to 350 and 357 to 360, situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District, through registered sale deed zide document No.17133/2019 from one Jeripeti Vinay Raj and others and constructed a house in thc subject plot, after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities. It is further stated that the respondent authorities without taking into consideration that the land purchased by the petitioner forming part in Sy.Nos.345 to 35O and 357 to 36O, have issued impugned show l

CVI]R..I wp .i6868 202:1 ..i{l cause notlce to him stating that he has encroachcd the Government land forming part in Survey No.343 to an cxtent of Acs'268.37 gts., and calred for an explanation u,i.hin r5 davs from the date of rcccipt of lhe notice. The grievance ol the pcritioncr is that thc rcsponclent authorities without taking rnto ronsjderarion of the documents enclosed in support of his explanatiolt. issuecl the impugned show cause notice dated O3.O4.2O24 zrs to why he should not be subjected to eviction from the subJect land, as he is in unauthorizecr occupation of the Government land rvhich lalls i, Survey No.343.

4.

Lcarned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thc pe titioner has rcceived the said impugned notice and after receipt of the impug,ed notice, the petitioner has sLLbmitted an cxplanation statiltg that the land in possession of thc pctitiot_rer is not forming part of Survey No.343.

5.

Lcarncd Assistant Government pleader appcarlng lbr thc respondents vchemently contended that the impugned shou,cause notice has been issued in proceedings No.B/576/2O23, dated 03.O4.2024, calling explanation from the petitioner and the pcriod prcscribed in the.show cause notice expired long back. 6.

Except stating that the period prescribed under the show cause notice has expired long back, learned Assistant (iovernment

CVBR, J wp 36868 2024 J Pleader has not placed any record to show that the respondents have passed any order under Section 6 of the Act. 7.

In view of the above submissions, if no orders have been passed in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the explanation/ documents submitted by the peLilioner by issuing fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass an appropnate reasoned order by following the procedurc prescribed under the Act and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till suctr time, thc partics are directed to maintain sratus quo existing as on today over the subject property. [f any orders have Lteen passed in pursuance of the said impugned order, the petilioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under Section 1O of the Act.

8.

With the above observations, this Wril Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed . SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department D R Ambedkar Telangana Secretarial,T.S., Hyderabad The District Collector, Sanga Re The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, Ameenpur Amee One CC to SRl. RAMAVARAM toPUCl t*o CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BM ddv Sanoa Reddv District Sahga RiOoy Division Sanga Reddy District npur Mandal, Sanga ReddY District CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, Advocate b

I HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024 ';iE;":-\.\ F- \1 .i:::

( \t- \r.

*. l\ rPfl 2r5 i i :! /i

ORDER

f) WP.No.36868 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS