Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1211 (TS)

Mahmood Alam Khan v. State of Telangana

2025-10-14

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are seeking cancellation of draft Layout vide T.L.P.No.111/2024/H with C.No.3497/256/2024/H e-Panchayat dated 11.07.2024 issued to the respondent No.5 in Sy.Nos.93, 94P, 95P, 111, 115P, 116, 117P, 118P, 120P, 121P, 151P and 152P, Yenkepalli Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District and in view of common cause of action, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. W.P. No. 17259 of 2025: 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.No.95, AAM, Yenkepelli Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District (Schedule A Property) by virtue of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 10.05.2024 entered into between the petitioner and his family members, who are shareholders of two companies, namely, M/s. GB Bakers Industries Private Limited and M/s. Golconda Textiles Private Limited. In a case pertaining to the above two companies viz. COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) No. 111 of 2022, the Tribunal referred the parties to mediation and a consensus was reached between the parties to settle their disputes and accordingly, entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated 10.05.2024. 3. It is stated that the petitioner and his brother, Mustafa Alam Khan, whose names are shown at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the memorandum, were allotted Ac2.16 guntas in Sy.No.95 of Yenkepelli Village. The petitioner and his brother had equal share of Ac.1.08 guntas each. The names of the petitioner and his brother, Mustafa Alam Khan, are mutated in the revenue records vide Khata No.408. 4. It is stated that on 20.04.2025, when the petitioner visited the Schedule A Property, he was shocked to notice that an 80-feet wide road was being laid down by the respondent No.5. On due inquiry with the concerned authorities about the permission for the said road, the petitioner came to know that the impugned draft layout permission vide T.L.P.No.111/2024/H which was obtained by the respondent No.5 in Sy.No.93, 94P, 95P, 111, 115P, 116, 117?, 118?, 120?, 121?, 151P and 152P, Yenkepelli Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities vide letter dated 23.04.2025 and requested them to cancel the layout permission granted to the respondent No.5. 5. It is stated that the respondents No.2 to 4 have failed to verify the documents of the respondent No.5, which wrongly includes Schedule A Property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged a police complaint. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities vide letter dated 23.04.2025 and requested them to cancel the layout permission granted to the respondent No.5. 5. It is stated that the respondents No.2 to 4 have failed to verify the documents of the respondent No.5, which wrongly includes Schedule A Property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged a police complaint. However, the respondent No.5 with political influence colluded with the local leaders. As a result, the complaint/representation has not been acted upo. W.P. No. 21495 of 2025: 6. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2.11 guntas in Sy.No.152/3 and Ac.2.12 guntas in Sy.No.152, total admeasuring Ac.4.23 guntas (Schedule B Property), situated at Yenkepelli Village and Gram Panchayat, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (presently Vikarabad District). The petitioner acquired the Schedule B Property by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.4049 of 2016 dated 02.05.2016 and the vendor of the petitioner purchased the said land from the previous owner under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.118/2014 dated 08.01.2014 and registered sale deed bearing Document No.2411 of 2014 dated 09.06.2014. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and she was issued Pattadar Pass Book vide Patta No 804 and Pass Book and Title Deed No.039624 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pudur Mandal. 7. It is stated that as there was interference some persons, namely, Sita Ram Venu Gopal, G.Gangadar Goud and Hyder, the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.291 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy, wherein ad interim injunction order was passed in I.A.No.709 of 2021 in O.S.No.291 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021. It is stated that Hyder is a farm servant of Super Dairy, owned by Ahmad Alam Khan and Barkat Alam Khan and they are misusing their influence and actively supporting respondent No.5 in illegal encroachment by creating forged and fabricated documents. 8. It is stated that the respondent No.5 has illegally taken Electricity connection and applied for NALA conversion of Schedule B Property. The petitioner approached the District Collector, Vikarabad District vide complaint dated 04.10.2023 requesting for rejection of Electricity connection and NALA conversion to respondent No.5 and also filed a similar complaint before the Panchayat Secretary, Yenekapalli Village, Pudur Mandal. 8. It is stated that the respondent No.5 has illegally taken Electricity connection and applied for NALA conversion of Schedule B Property. The petitioner approached the District Collector, Vikarabad District vide complaint dated 04.10.2023 requesting for rejection of Electricity connection and NALA conversion to respondent No.5 and also filed a similar complaint before the Panchayat Secretary, Yenekapalli Village, Pudur Mandal. The petitioner also lodged a private complaint before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi, Vikarabad District, against the respondent No.5 and vide Docket Order dated 31.05.2024 in Crl.S.R.No.561 of 2024, the complaint was referred to the Chengomul Police Station under Section 156(3) of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 and directed the S.H.O, P.S Chengomul to file the report before the trial Court on or before 23.07.2024, but the police did not file any report till now. 9. It is stated that, on the other hand, respondent No.5, in order to grab Schedule B Property of the petitioner foisted a false case against the petitioner's son, namely, Nomula Sai Nikal Goud, in FIR.No.27 of 2024 alleging that the son of the petitioner has trespassed into the land of the respondent No.5 and damaged the boundary pre-cast stones in Sy.No.152. The enquiry conducted by Revenue Girdawar, under the cover of panchanama on 09.08.2021, with respect to Cr.No.82 of 2020, reveals that the petitioner is in the possession of the Schedule B Property and report to that effect is submitted to the MRO, Pudur Mandal dated 09.08.2021. It is stated that on 20.04.2025, when the petitioner visited Schedule B Property, she was shocked to notice that an 80 feet wide road was laid in Schedule B Property. It is alleged that the respondents No.2 to 4 have issued the layout without proper verification of documents. The layout of the respondent No.5 includes Schedule B Property. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in WP.No.17259 of 2025, it is stated that the petitioner, who claims title based on the Memorandum of Compromise dated 10.05.2024, does not have independent title over Schedule A Property and it is subject matter of Civil Appeal No.5033 of 2023 pending before the Supreme Court. In fact, the petitioner and his brother, Ahmed Alam Khan, are joint owners of Schedule A Property, as per the Memorandum of Compromise dated 10.05.2024 and not Mustafa Alam Khan, as claimed in the writ affidavit. 11. In fact, the petitioner and his brother, Ahmed Alam Khan, are joint owners of Schedule A Property, as per the Memorandum of Compromise dated 10.05.2024 and not Mustafa Alam Khan, as claimed in the writ affidavit. 11. It is stated that the respondent No.5 is owner of Ac.100.21 guntas of land whereas the petitioner has claimed Schedule A Property (Ac.1.08 guntas), which is not identifiable. The respondent No.5 has invested huge amounts for developing the project, having obtained a layout. The layout permission was granted by following due process of law and after conducting survey of the land covered by the layout. 12. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in WP.No.21495 of 2025, it is stated that the respondent No.5 apart from purchasing Ac.100.21 guntas also entered into a registered development agreement cum general power of attorney dated 30.03.2024 with Mr. Barkat Alam Khan vide registered document bearing No.799/2024 for an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.152E3/1 and an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.152a1/, Yenkepalli Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District. 13. It is stated that the respondent No.5 along with Barkat Alam Khan have and one Malli Yuvaraj executed a Gift Deed bearing document No.1856/2024 dated 26.07.2024 in favour of the Executive Officer/Panchayat Secretary, Yenkepally Gram Panchayat, for the land earmarked for 8 park areas totally admeasuring 41246.48 sq. yards. Further, they executed a mortgage deed bearing document No.1857/2024 dated 26.07.2024 in favour of the Executive Officer/Panchayat Secretary, Yenkepally Gram Panchayat, for an extent of 3659 sq. yards out of total land admeasuring 414391 guntas (164 plots). The respondent No.5 has already sold 100 plots to various third parties under registered sale deeds. 14. Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. G. Raghu, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.5 is civil in nature. There are serious issues involving title and boundary disputes. The title of the petitioners is not clear. Learned senior counsel also relied on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.92 of 2021 dated 21.10.2019. 15. Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the counter and additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 wherein the title of the respondent No.5 is described. Learned senior counsel also relied on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.92 of 2021 dated 21.10.2019. 15. Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the counter and additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 wherein the title of the respondent No.5 is described. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 is the owner of Ac.100.21 guntas whereas the extent of land of the petitioner in WP.No.17259 of 2025 is Ac.1.08 guntas and the extent of land of the petitioner in WP.No.21495 of 2025 is Ac.4.23 guntas. The dispute, if any, regarding boundary cannot be decided by the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners are fully aware of the development activity carried out by the respondent No.5 and never objected to the same at any point of time. 16. Mr. Munuga Sateesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the injunction suit in O.S.No.291 of 2021, filed by the petitioner in WP.No.21495 of 2025, injunction order was passed on 21.01.2021 in IA.No.709 of 2021 in respect of Ac.4.23 guntas covered by Sy.No.152 of Yenkepalli Village. The petitioners have been issued pattadar passbook and title deeds by the revenue authorities. 17. Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. G. Raghu, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that the respondent No.5 is not the defendant in O.S.No.291 of 2021. It is further submitted that the pattadar pass books and title deeds have been issued to respondent No.5 for the land of 100 acres under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. 18. As seen from the record, representation dated 23.04.2025 was submitted by the petitioner in WP.No.17259 of 2025 asserting that the impugned draft layout permission vide T.L.P.No.111/2024/H with C.No.3497/256/2024/H e-Panchayat dated 11.07.2024 granted to the respondent No.5 may be cancelled, as access to the petitioner’s land is being blocked; the layout includes the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.No.95/AAM and the petitioner was issued pattadar passbook No.T07150020134 bearing Khata No.408 for several extents of land including the subject land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.No.95/AAM, Yenkepalli Village. 19. Insofar as petitioner in WP.No.21459 of 2025 is concerned, the Dharani Record, Ex.P8, shows that the petitioner is recorded as pattadar of land in several sub-divisions of Sy.No.152, totally admeasuring Ac.4.23 guntas. 19. Insofar as petitioner in WP.No.21459 of 2025 is concerned, the Dharani Record, Ex.P8, shows that the petitioner is recorded as pattadar of land in several sub-divisions of Sy.No.152, totally admeasuring Ac.4.23 guntas. The petitioner also filed representations dated 04.10.2023 to the respondent authorities for rejection of electricity meter and NALA conversion applications filed by third parties in respect of her land admeasuring Ac.4.23 guntas. 20. Thus, prima facie, the petitioners in both these writ petitions are owners of the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ property respectively. It is their grievance that the respondent No.4 is not acting upon their representations seeking cancellation of the layout issued in favour of the respondent No.5. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners cannot be non-suited for filing the writ petitions merely because the dispute involves title and possession. When representations/complaints are filed by the petitioners for cancellation of draft layout it is incumbent on the respondent authorities to act upon the said representations, more particularly, when there is allegation that the lands of the petitioners are included in the layout of respondent No.5 and 80 feet road is being laid through the lands of the petitioners, thereby, depriving them of access to their remaining land. 21. It is not in dispute that the layout is being developed by the respondent No.5 in a huge extent of land of more than 100 acres covering Sy.No.152 and adjoining survey numbers. At the time of granting layout permission, presumably, the title is done and boundary of the land was inspected and measured. 22. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.5 that even during the survey, conducted prior to issuance of layout, there was no objection from the petitioners. However, it is not the case of the respondent No.5 that the petitioners have been issued prior notice before such survey was conducted. In any case, the authority, who has granted layout permission, is bound to act on the representations of the petitioners when a genuine grievance is put forth. It is not as if the petitioners do not have any interest over the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ subject property. 23. In any case, the authority, who has granted layout permission, is bound to act on the representations of the petitioners when a genuine grievance is put forth. It is not as if the petitioners do not have any interest over the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ subject property. 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to conduct a detailed enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2025, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, respondent No.5 and other interested persons. During such enquiry, the respondent No.2 shall conduct verification of tile of the petitioners and respondent No.5 and also conduct survey if necessary and if it is found, during the enquiry, that there is any boundary dispute or there is interference or encroachment by respondent No.5 in the lands of the petitioner, necessary orders shall be passed for revoking or altering the layout to the extent of the disputed land. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.