Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1238 (TS)

Kanneboina Ailaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-10-16

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly the respondent No.10 in taking any action against the illegal construction carried out by the unofficial respondent No.11 on the land situated in Survey No.246, Rasoolpally Village (earlier Mallaram Village), Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangana, in spite of several complaints/representations and also the official communications from the respondent No.5, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and consequently, to direct the official respondents, particularly respondent No.10 to take action for demolition of illegal construction carried out by the unofficial respondent No.11 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner No.1 claim to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.01-07 gts., in Survey No.246B at Rasoolpally Village (earlier Mallaram Village), Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangana and that he is possessing a passbook for the said land vide Passbook No.T21010120729 (e-passbook as per Dharani). The petitioner No.2 is the younger son of petitioner No.1. It is submitted that the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land, but in the year 2018, the respondent No.11 encroached into the petitioners’ land and started making construction, claiming it to be his land to an extent of Ac.01-20 gts., in Survey No.246/A2. Further, the respondent No.11 did not obtain any permission for construction and therefore, the petitioner No.1 immediately filed a complaint before the Panchayat Secretary i.e., respondent No.10 on 16.08.2018. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent No.10 stopped the illegal construction by oral instructions. However, the unofficial respondent No.11, resumed construction activities in the year 2021. On enquiry as to how the construction is being made, the petitioners came to know that the official respondent No.10 has given permission to the unofficial respondent No.11 to make the construction. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.2 filed representations dated 18.06.2021 with respondents No.10, 7 and 5. In response thereto, the respondent No.5 directed the respondent No.10 to take action, specifically directing him to enquire and submit a detailed report within three days. However, no action has been taken by the respondent No.10. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.2 filed representations dated 18.06.2021 with respondents No.10, 7 and 5. In response thereto, the respondent No.5 directed the respondent No.10 to take action, specifically directing him to enquire and submit a detailed report within three days. However, no action has been taken by the respondent No.10. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 submitted a representation dated 24.07.2023 to respondent No.5 for cancellation of building permission granted to unofficial respondent No.11. The said representations were also submitted to respondents No.2, 4 and 8. It was also claimed that the unofficial respondent No.11 has obtained permission fraudulently and that he obtained the copies of said documents through RTI from the office of respondent No.10. It is stated that the documents submitted for building permission are created for the purpose of obtaining permission for construction and the said documents do not have the dates on them. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation dated 24.07.2023, in response to which, the respondent No.5 issued a Memo dated 27.07.2023 to the respondent No.7 to enquire into the matter and file a detailed report. Subsequently, the District Panchayat Officer i.e., respondent No.5 vide Memo dated 04.08.2023, instructed respondent No.6 to enquire into the matter and file a detailed report and consequent thereto, notices were issued to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent and the official respondents directed for survey of agricultural lands. Subsequently, the District Panchayat Officer i.e., respondent No.5 vide Memo dated 04.08.2023, instructed respondent No.6 to enquire into the matter and file a detailed report and consequent thereto, notices were issued to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent and the official respondents directed for survey of agricultural lands. Consequent to the Memo dated 04.08.2023, the respondent No.6 conducted an enquiry at the location of construction of the unofficial respondent No.11 and vide R.C.No.78/A2/2023, dated 19.09.2023, the respondent No.6 observed that 1) process of issuing sanction orders for House Permission was done against Rules & Regulations; 2) The Panchayat Secretary i.e., official respondent No.10 was negligent in not putting date on house construction permission Letter; 3) No Nala Conversion took place for the Agricultural Land in the said Survey Number i.e., Survey No.246; 4) permission was never applied through online mode; 5) No Registration or Link Documents were submitted; 6) Construction Permission Letter and Application Documents File was not maintained; 7) The Panchayat Secretary i.e., official respondent No.10 did not considered objections of the petitioners vide complaint dated 18.06.2018 and failed to implement order of District Panchayat Officer i.e., official respondent No.5; 8) The name of the unofficial respondent No.11 was not in Tax Demand Register from 2018 to 2024; 9) The unofficial respondent No.11 could not submit any documents regarding the ownership. 3. On the basis of the above report, the respondent No.5 issued a Memo dated 01.11.2023 cancelling the construction permission of the unofficial respondent No.11 and directed the Panchayat Secretary to take necessary action against the same. Further, on the very same day, based on the complaint of the unofficial respondent No.11, the District Panchayat Officer i.e., the respondent No.5 also issued another Memo dated 01.11.2023 directing the Mandal Surveyor to conduct a survey and determine the boundaries and the unofficial respondent No.11 was informed that the matter of ownership is a Civil dispute and therefore, he has to go to Civil Court for adjudication. Since no action was taken by the respondent No.10 subsequent to the cancellation of the building permission of unofficial respondent No.11, vide orders of the respondent No.5 dated 01.11.2023, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5, 10 and 11 have filed their respective counter affidavits. Since no action was taken by the respondent No.10 subsequent to the cancellation of the building permission of unofficial respondent No.11, vide orders of the respondent No.5 dated 01.11.2023, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5, 10 and 11 have filed their respective counter affidavits. The petitioner No.2 has argued the matter as a party in person and has reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents referred to therein, which are filed along with the writ affidavit. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for the respondent No.5, in his counter affidavit has confirmed about the complaints received from the petitioners about the illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondent No.11 and also that the petitioner No.2 has submitted a representation dated 24.07.2023 to the District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakonda, for cancellation of the building permission, which was obtained illegally and that the same was forwarded to the Mandal Panchayat Officer, MPP Bheemadevarapally, for enquiry. It is further submitted that the Commissioner also, vide Memo dated 28.07.2023, had forwarded the representation of the petitioner for enquiry and necessary action. Thereafter, the unofficial respondent No.11 has submitted a representation dated 11.08.2023, claiming to be the owner of the subject property in Survey No.246. The said representation also was forwarded to the District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakonda and an inquiry was directed to be made. It is submitted that the District Panchayat Officer has submitted a report dated 19.09.2023 and the contents have already been reproduced in the paras above and therefore, on the basis of the said report, the District Panchayat Officer, Hanumakonda, had directed the respondent No.10 to take action for cancellation of the house construction permission. It is submitted that there was also a direction to conduct a survey and demarcate the boundaries and the issue of ownership rights of land was directed to get adjudicated by the parties in the Civil Court. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2’s representation dated 11.12.2023 for demolition of illegal construction was received and vide Memo dated 20.12.2023, the respondent No.10 was directed to take necessary action against the illegal construction and that a notice has accordingly been issued on 05.01.2024 to the unofficial respondent No.11, who submitted an explanation on 10.01.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2’s representation dated 11.12.2023 for demolition of illegal construction was received and vide Memo dated 20.12.2023, the respondent No.10 was directed to take necessary action against the illegal construction and that a notice has accordingly been issued on 05.01.2024 to the unofficial respondent No.11, who submitted an explanation on 10.01.2024. It is submitted that as the writ petition is now pending before this Court, the respondent No.10 has not taken any action for demolition of the illegal construction. 6. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.10, in his counter affidavit, has recited the sequence of events as stated by the respondent No.5 and it is further submitted that the unofficial respondent has submitted relevant documents and that the respondent No.10 has forwarded the same to the District Panchayat Officer for further instructions. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No.11, in his counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petitioners are guilty of playing fraud on the Court and that they have suppressed vital and material documents and therefore, they have not approached this Court with clean hands. It is submitted that originally, one Sri.Veeraiah, was the owner and pattedar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.04-07 gts., in Survey No.246 at Rasoolpally Village (earlier Mallaram Village), Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District and after the death of Sri.Veeraiah in the year 1972, his son by name Sri.Chada Narsi Reddy, inherited the subject property and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. It is submitted that thereafter, there were disputes between the Sri.Chada Narsi Reddy and his relative Sri.Chada Raji Reddy and upon settlement, the subject property fell to the share of Sri.Chada Raji Reddy, though the revenue records reflected the name of Sri.Chada Narsi Reddy as owner/pattedar and possessor of the subject property in the Pahani for the year 1990-1991; and that on 05.10.1990, the father of respondent No.11, purchased the subject property for a consideration through an unregistered sale deed (sada bainama) and that the said document was executed by both Sri.Chada Narsi Reddy and Sri.Chada Raji Reddy and that the father of the unofficial respondent No.11’s name was recorded in the Pahani’s for the years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995- 96. It is further submitted that the unofficial respondent No.11 had submitted an application under RTI Act on 19.08.2021 to furnish the information and documents pertaining to the transfer of patta in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of Survey No.246 and in response to the same, the office of the Thasildar has furnished a reply dated 03.09.2021 stating that the file pertaining to the transfer of patta in favour of petitioner No.1 is not found, but subsequently after a lot of persuasion, the record was furnished. It is stated that in the Pahani for the year 1998- 99, the father of unofficial respondent No.11 was shown as Pattedar and possessor in respect of Ac.03-00 gts., of land, while his father’s vendor i.e., Sri Chada Narsi Reddy, was shown as Pattedar and Possessor of land admeasuring Ac.01-07 gts., and that this was due to the illiteracy of the father of the unofficial respondent No.11. It is stated that amendments in the Pahani for the year 1998-99 was made behind the back of the unofficial respondent No.11 and therefore, it is not binding on them. It is stated that the name of the petitioner No.1 was incorporated as Pattedar and Possessor of land admeasuring Ac.01-07 gts., in the place of Sri Chada Narsi Reddy and Pahani’s for the years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and after receiving the documents from the Tahsildar in the year 2021, the respondent No.11 has approached the office of Tahsildar Bheemadevarapalli, to rectify the anomaly, but the same has not been carried out so far. It is submitted that the unofficial respondent No.11 has obtained permission and has constructed the house and he is in peaceful possession of the same. It is further stated that he had submitted an application to the Tahsildhar for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land and vide Proceedings dated 11.12.2023, the Nala conversion has been allowed. It is submitted that on the day on which the official respondents communicated about the cancellation of the construction permission, a direction was also given to the respondent No.5 to conduct a survey and determine the boundaries and the action is yet to be taken on the said direction. 8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.11 has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the following propositions: 1. 8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.11 has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the following propositions: 1. The decision of this Court in the case of A.Ramesh v. The State of Telangana , [W.P.No.29904 of 2024, dt.19.11.2024.] , for the proposition that “Appeal would lie against the Order granting Building Permission before the Appellant Authority under Section 121 of Panchayat Raj Act i.e., District Collector, but not a Writ Petition - Disputed Questions of Title”. 2. In the case of Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India , 1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 (5J) and Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) , [ (2015) 4 SCC 204 ] , for the proposition that “Disputed Questions of title cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition - The parties are required to approach the Competent Civil Court”. 3. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ] , and also in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2007) 4 SCC 221 ] , for the proposition that “Fraud-Judgment or Decree obtained by Fraud is a nullity - it can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings - Finality of Litigation.” 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent No.11 are claiming to be the owners of Ac.01-07 gts., in Survey No.246. While the petitioners claim to be the owner in Survey No.246/B, the unofficial respondent No.11 is claiming to be the owner in Survey No.246/A2. It is an admitted fact that the unofficial respondent No.11 started construction in the year 2018 without obtaining any permission and that the construction was stopped and it was in the year 2021 that the construction permission was granted in favour of the unofficial respondent No.11 without taking into consideration the petitioners’ objection. It is thereafter that the petitioners have submitted representation for cancellation of the building permission and the building permission has also been cancelled in the year 2023. The respondent No.11 has not filed any appeal against the same and has not challenged the cancellation order but it is only stated that a survey was also directed to be conducted thereafter and therefore, he is awaiting the survey to be conducted. The respondent No.11 has not filed any appeal against the same and has not challenged the cancellation order but it is only stated that a survey was also directed to be conducted thereafter and therefore, he is awaiting the survey to be conducted. However, this Court finds that the report of the respondent No.6 clearly establishes that the construction permission was not granted in accordance with law and that it is on the basis of such report that the building permission has been cancelled by the respondent No.5. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.10 ought to have taken action for demolition of the illegal structure. However, no action has been taken by the respondent No.10. The only reason given by the respondent No.10 is the pendency of this writ petition. However, this Court observes that this writ petition is filed against inaction on the part of the respondent No.10 and there is no stay or interim order granted by this Court in any proceedings against the demolition of the illegal structures. 10. As regards the ownership and title of the subject property, the parties would have to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication as advised by the respondent authorities. However, when the unofficial respondent No.11 had made the construction without permission and subsequently, the permission granted has been cancelled, it is the bounden duty of the respondent No.10 to take action against such illegal construction. Except for the issuance of notice, the respondent No.10 has not taken any further action thereon. However, as there is also a direction by the respondent No.5 to conduct a survey and fix the boundaries, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it fit and proper to direct the Mandal Surveyor to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries of the property of both the parties within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a compliance report. Thereafter, the respondent No.10 shall take action in accordance with the directions of respondent No.5. The Survey authorities may take the assistance of police, if required. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.