Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1240 (TS)

Mohd Osman 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 inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 to 6 in taking any action against the construction being made by the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9, even though the said construction is illegal and unauthorized, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the official respondents No.2 to 6 to restore the damaged link road/concrete road and Mission Bhageeratha water supply to the petitioners’ houses by demolishing the illegal building structure raised by the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 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 petitioners are brothers and are claiming to be owners of H.Nos.1-66/2 and 1-66 of Sarpanpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District and claim to be living in the said premises. It is submitted that there is a main CC road leading from their village Sarpanpally to Nasanpalli Village and there is a concrete link road of 12 feet to the petitioners’ houses and there is a pipeline of Mission Bhageeratha under the ground of the said land. It is submitted that adjacent to the main road and the link road, is Gramakantam open land and the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 are making construction of a building unauthorizedly in the Gramakantam land without taking any permission. Therefore, the petitioners claim to have made representations on 06.12.2022, 13.11.2023, 24.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 to the official respondents to stop the construction and also to restore the water pipelines of Mission Bhageeratha, which was damaged by the unofficial respondents during construction. It is submitted that the official respondents have issued a notice to respondent No.7 under Section 114(1) of the TELANGANA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 2018, for the stoppage of unauthorized construction, but the same was not considered at all and the unofficial respondents continued to make construction and therefore, Gram Panchayat has also passed a unanimous resolution dated 10.05.2023 to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction, but there was no attention paid to the same by the unofficial respondents. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. This Court, vide orders dated 01.03.2024, had granted interim direction to the respondents No.2 to 6 to take steps to stop the unauthorized building construction being made by the respondents No.7 to 9, situated at Sarpanpally Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 relied upon the averments made in the stay vacate petition filed and on 31.12.2024 it was submitted before this Court that the respondents No.7 to 9 has made another application for building permission on 01.03.2024 but the same has been reverted by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners on 09.04.2025 alleged that the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the construction. Learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, however, submitted that construction has been stopped and sought time to file photographs in support of the said contention. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, however, submitted that the building permission application has not been rejected within the prescribed time and under the deemed provisions, they have completed the construction. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat relied on the averments in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that upon receipt of the representation of the petitioners on 06.12.2022, the notices dated 08.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 were given to stop the illegal construction and they were directed to apply for house building permission by submitting the required documents. It is stated that the unofficial respondents did not act upon the notices and proceeded to make illegal construction on the Mission Bhagirath pipeline and therefore, the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanpally, has passed a resolution dated 30.12.2022 to stop the illegal construction and to demolish the illegal structures raised on the Mission Bhageeratha pipeline. It is stated that after the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, another notice dated 03.01.2023 was issued and a representation dated 09.06.2023 was given to the Station House Officer, Vikarabad, to give police protection for demolishing the illegal structures raised on the Mission Bhageeratha pipeline and thereafter, a notice was also issued to the unofficial respondents on 20.06.2023 and with the support of the Police, Vikarabad, they have removed the structures raised on the Mission Bhageeratha pipeline and stopped the illegal construction. It is stated that the unofficial respondents again started the construction activity even after the removal of the structures and therefore, another notice dated 29.02.2024 was issued and when the notice was refused to be received, it was sent through a registered post. Further vide Memo dated 05.03.2024, the Mandal Panchayat Officer, Vikarabad, claims to have issued notice to the respondent to submit all permissions from Gram Panchayat and other departments pertaining to the construction being raised by the unofficial respondents. In reply thereto, the respondent No.6 has addressed a letter dated 07.03.2024 to the MPO, Vikarabad, stating that no permission was accorded by any authorities with regard to the illegal construction of the unofficial respondents. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed in the present writ petition, the official respondent has issued a notice dated 09.03.2024 with a direction not to carry out any construction activity and that construction work has been stopped. Further, he has filed photographs to demonstrate that the slab for the first floor has already been laid and walls are yet to be constructed. The copies of the status of the applications of the unofficial respondents for construction permission were also filed to demonstrate that the applications have been rejected by the Gram Panchayat. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.13500 and 20603 of 2023, dated 27.03.2024, wherein when the respondent therein has continued construction work in spite of interim direction of this Court, the said action was deprecated and that the respondent therein was held liable to be punished with exemplary costs and the construction raised by the respondent therein was directed to be demolished with the cost recovered from the said respondents and to take assistance of concerned police if necessary and he prayed for similar direction in this case also. 6. A reply affidavit to this effect has also been filed by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has filed a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition and submitted that the father-in-law of the respondents No.9 was the owner of the said property and after his demise, it was inherited by his sons and they are in exclusive possession of the subject property. 7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has filed a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition and submitted that the father-in-law of the respondents No.9 was the owner of the said property and after his demise, it was inherited by his sons and they are in exclusive possession of the subject property. It is stated that after the death of the father-in-law, the property was partitioned between the brothers and the property devolved on the unofficial respondent No.9 i.e., one of the brothers and the share of his brothers was also purchased by him for a valid sale consideration and that the respondents No.7 to 9 are in peaceful possession of the same. It is stated that during the lifetime of the father-in-law, he obtained construction permission from respondent No.6 Gram Panchayat on 15.01.1988, but due to financial problems, he could not construct the building on the said property and subsequently, in the year 2008, the Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned the house under the Indiramma Housing Scheme and sanctioned an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the basement of the plot was constructed before respondent No.9 father-in-law passed away and therefore, they could not complete the construction and it is stated that while the official respondents removed the old basement, the Panchayat Secretary came to the site and issued a notice dated 08.12.2022 and advised the unofficial respondents to apply for construction permission and therefore, the unofficial respondent No.9 has made an online application on 08.12.2022 and since the respondent No.6 had not taken any decision thereon within a period of fifteen days after receipt of the said application, the unofficial respondent No.9 orally informed the Gram Panchayat on 24.12.2022 and commenced the construction under the deemed provision of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. It is stated that vide notice dated 30.12.2022, the unofficial respondents were directed to stop the construction, but by the time the unofficial respondents had laid the pillars in the said property and constructed a new basement in the said property and on the same day i.e., on 30.12.2022, the application of the unofficial respondents was rejected and the unofficial respondent No.9 was directed to produce ownership documents. It is stated that the said documents have already been produced on 08.12.2022 itself and that they did not possess any registered documents of title because the property is situated in the Gramkantam of Sarpanpally Village. It is stated that those who are in possession of the Gramakantam land are the owners of the property and since the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 are in possession of their land, they were also permitted under the Indiramma Housing Scheme to construct on the said plot. The unofficial respondents also admitted that on receipt of notice dated 03.01.2023 from the Gram Panchayat, they stopped the construction and thereafter, made an online application on 01.03.2024 and another notice dated 09.03.2024 was issued directing them to stop the construction and accordingly, the unofficial respondents have stopped the construction. It is stated that under Section 114(3) of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, the building permission shall be sanctioned within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application, provided that such an application is accompanied by valid documents. Since the said property was situated in the limits of Gramakantam land, the old permission is also enclosed and since the same was not considered and was neither rejected within the prescribed period of fifteen days, it is deemed to be allowed and the respondent No.9 had proceeded with the construction on the subject property. 8. With regard to the existence of a concrete link road of 12 feet from the main road to the petitioners’ house, it is denied and stated that it is only 3 feet sheri sandu and both the petitioners as well as the respondents have right over the 3 feet sheri sandu and there is no encroachment by the unofficial respondents. It is stated that due to political rivalry, the complaints have been made against the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9. The copies of the permission granted in the year 2018, were also filed before this Court along with photographs of the construction of the house. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of the respondents. 10. The copies of the permission granted in the year 2018, were also filed before this Court along with photographs of the construction of the house. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of the respondents. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly the respondent No.9 has inherited the property through her husband and respondents No.7 and 8 are her sons and they claim to be in possession of the Grama Kantam land and have proceeded with construction on the said land. It is also not denied that they have not been able to obtain any building permission and are claiming deemed permission under Section 114 (3) of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has demonstrated that after the application has been made online, the official respondents have not responded for more than fifteen days and the reversion of the appliation is much later and therefore, the deeming provisions would apply. However, this Court finds that under Section 114(3) of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj, the deeming provisions would apply only if valid link documents are also enclosed with the building application. In this case, admittedly, the respondents No.7 to 9 do not have any valid link documents but are claiming to be in possession of the Gramkantam land. Therefore, the deeming provisions would not apply in this case. The respondents have to obtain the building permission and thereafter only, can proceed with the construction. From the documents filed by the learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat, the building permission has been rejected on the ground that the dispute is pending in this writ petition. Therefore, the deeming provisions would not apply in this case. The respondents have to obtain the building permission and thereafter only, can proceed with the construction. From the documents filed by the learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat, the building permission has been rejected on the ground that the dispute is pending in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent No.6 to consider the documents also filed by the respondents No.7 to 9 and take a decision on the application of the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the respondents No.7 to 9 shall not be allowed to proceed with the construction and if it is found that the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 do not have valid title documents and are not able to prove their possession of the subject Gramakantam land, then the unauthorized construction already made by the unofficial respondents No.7 to 9 shall be removed at their cost. The respondent No.6 is therefore, directed to proceed accordingly. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.