Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 376 (TS)

Vinayak Industries v. State of Telangana

2025-04-22

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 and in not removing the illegal encroachment and digging made by the respondent No.5 on the 40 feet existing gram panchayat road, thereby blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner industry in Survey No.15, Thoompalli Village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the official respondents to remove the illegal encroachments made by the respondent No.5 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 industry is engaged in the business of manufacturing of packaging products and had purchased the land Ac.2.39 guntas in Survey No.15 along with 8,600 sft., of tin shed and 2,000 sft., of RCC constructed area, situated at Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the earlier industry i.e., GN Packaging under a registered sale deed bearing document No.17401 of 2018, dated 10.09.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have obtained all necessary permissions for manufacturing of packaging products and has been successfully running its operations without any hindrances. It is submitted that the respondent No.5, the neighbor of the petitioner and owner of the adjacent land in Survey No.75 of Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, has illegally blocked the ingress and egress to the factory of the petitioner by encroaching the 12.19 (40)Mtrs., public road and has commenced the construction activities without obtaining any permissions from the respondent No.2 department. It is submitted that erstwhile industry M/s.GN Packaging had obtained approval of factory plans from the respondent No.2 on 26.05.2007 and the respondent No.2 had inspected the land and has observed that it had 40 feet existing road and was away from the river, lake, nala to a distance of 30 meters and there were no residential colonies, no educational/ medical/religious institutions near to the Survey No.15 and a certificate to that extent was issued in favour of the earlier industry enclosing the location sketch. It is submitted that vendor of the petitioner also obtained a DTCP approval clearly showing that there exists 40 feet wide road towards eastern side of Survey No.15 and after purchase of the property, the petitioner has obtained mutation proceedings from respondent No.2 on 17.11.2018 and has also obtained the location sketch from TS-iPass on 22.02.2020 wherein it is clearly shown that on the eastern side of Survey No.15, there exists 40 feet wide road. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 24.09.2024 to the authorities to stop the illegal digging and construction by the respondent No.5, but since no action has been initiated by the official respondents, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 after considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and the documents filed by the petitioner along with reply to the counter affidavit, observed that there was a road from Vanampally to Thoompalli from the main road abutting Survey No.76 and further that the petitioner cannot be denied the facility of ingress and egress from his property, more particularly when there is a main road to Thoompally Village via Vanampally Village. Therefore, this Court had directed the petitioner to close the pits allegedly dug by the respondent No.5 and use the same for ingress and egress until further orders of this Court and that the said interim order is subject to restoration of the said possession to respondent No.5 if it is found that the respondent No.5 had the right over the said property and there was permission for him to make construction over the said property. Thereafter, vide orders dated 06.11.2024, the Mandal Revenue Officer was also directed to file counter affidavit with regard to the existence of the road adjacent to the property of the petitioner in Survey No.15 and the respondent No.5 was directed not to obstruct the ingress and egress of the petitioner to and from his property. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had attributed all false allegations in the writ affidavit. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had attributed all false allegations in the writ affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a representation against respondent No.5 in the year 2022 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, who directed the Jilled Chowdarygudem Mandal Tahsildar to conduct a survey in the presence of Gram Panchayat officials and accordingly, the Tahsildar has conducted the survey and has declared that the alleged 40 feet road is not existing as per the official Nakshabata of the village and submitted the same to the District Collector vide letter No.B/687/2022, dated 05.09.2022 and submitted the copies to the petitioner and respondent No.5. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent No.2 for permission to construct a building and submitted the nala copy obtained by him and after verifying the nala permission, the respondent No.2 issued the construction permission vide No.101/BP/2023, dated 21.01.2023 and that the respondent No.2 was also present at the time of the said survey and panchanama conducted in the year 2022, in which it was clearly established that the alleged 40 feet wide road was not existing in the Nakshabata and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Along with the counter affidavit, he has enclosed the copy of the reports dated 13.05.2022 and 05.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the above counter affidavit confirming that he has submitted a representation in the year 2022 to the District Collector when the respondent No.5 had tried to encroach the road and that the Tahsildar has demolished the illegal construction of the respondent No.5 and further that the petitioner was not put on any notice before conducting the survey and that the survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner reserves his right to challenge the said survey report dated 16.08.2022 and that the same is contrary to the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor on 08.05.2005, according to which there exists a 40 feet approach road towards petitioner’s factory from Pargi to Shadnagar main road. He placed reliance upon the sketch map prepared by the Mandal Surveyor in the year 2005. Therefore, according to him, the survey report dated 16.08.2022 is incorrect and contrary to the earlier records and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance upon the sketch map prepared by the Mandal Surveyor in the year 2005. Therefore, according to him, the survey report dated 16.08.2022 is incorrect and contrary to the earlier records and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that even according to the proceedings of the Tahsildar Chowdergudem, dated 13.05.2022, there exists a 40 feet road which is being used by the petitioner to access his factory main gate. As regards the construction permission allegedly granted to the respondent No.5 by respondent No.2, it is stated that the said permission is illegal without perusing the records of the respondent No.2 and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is stated that by encroachment of the road by the respondent No.5, the petitioner is not able to carry on the business operations of the factory due to the blockage of ingress and egress to the factory premises. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent No.5 is the owner of the land in Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village and not Survey No.75 as mentioned by the petitioner and as per the village map, there is a cart track from Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village, but the same is not connected to Survey No.15 of Thoompally Village and continues to Survey No.14 of Thoompally Village. Therefore, it is stated that there is no cart track connecting to Survey No.15 of Thoompally Village from Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village, which pertains to respondent No.5 as alleged by the petitioner herein and that the petitioner industry appears to be using the land of respondent No.5 as approach road with mutual understanding and due to differences that have arisen between them subsequently, the respondent No.5 appears to have closed the approach road from patta land and that the official respondents are not concerned with the same. It is also denied that there is a 40 feet wide road towards the eastern side of Survey No.75 and that the respondent No.5 has obtained nala permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar Division, vide Proceedings No.K/3315/2008, dated 04.08.2008, for an extent of Ac.1.21 guntas in Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village and constructed a weigh bridge and therefore, the official respondents cannot stop any constructions which have been constructed duly obtaining permissions from the concerned Gram Panchayat. Thus, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Enclosed thereto is the location sketch showing the car track adjacent to Survey No.76 and Survey No.14. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has also filed a counter affidavit along with a stay vacate petition i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2024, stating that the petitioner has not filed any documents along with the writ petition in proof of the existence of the road leading to his factory premises. It is submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner is purely civil in nature and this Court should not entertain the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 along with the photographs to show that the efforts of the petitioner to fill the pits and use the road as per the interim direction of this Court have been obstructed by the family members of the respondent No.5 and thereby committed contempt of the order of this Court. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the schedule of the property in registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner mentions road on the western side of the subject property and land in Survey No.15/p on the eastern side and the location sketch and certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat also show a road on the western side of the petitioner’s property. The Location Sketch is signed by the Mandal Surveyor of Kondurg Mandal. Thus, the petitioner is claiming that there is a cart track between Survey No.75 of Vanampally village and Survey No.15 of Thoompally village. However, it is noticed that respondent No.5 is the owner of land in Survey No.76 and not Survey No.75, the official respondents have denied the existence of the road and it is stated that the petitioner was using the private property of the respondent No.5 as an approach road to his factory due to an understanding between them and that there is no 40 feet road existing as per the village maps. This Court finds that in the year 2022, as per the enquiry report dated 13.05.2022 submitted by the Tahsildar, Jilled Chowdarygudem to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, there existed a 40 feet road which leads from Survey No.76 of Vanampally Village via Survey No.14/2 of Thoompally Village to the factory gate in Survey No.15, which is being used by the factory of Vinayaka Industries, but that the road is in Survey No.14/2 which is assigned to Sri Mahmood, S/o.Ameen Sab. It is further stated that as per village map, there is no road depicted in the disputed site. The petitioner is disputing the said report on the ground that it was behind the back of the petitioner. Further, from the building permission granted to respondent No.5, it is noticed that the western boundary of Survey No.76 is mentioned as “Bandlabata”, which gives credence to the contentions of the petitioner about the existence of the road. Even the counter of the respondent No.3 refers to a cart track in Survey No.76 which ended up to Survey No.14 which is Government land. However, it is noticed that Survey No.14 is on the western side of Survey No.15 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner about the existence of cart track is not baseless. Even from the plan annexed to the building permission granted to respondent No.5, there is a cart track on the western side of his land. However, all of these are dispute questions of fact and cannot be decided in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner therefore would have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy and till such time, the cart track leading from Survey No.76 to Survey No.14 as admitted and confirmed by the respondent No.3 as approach road to the petitioner’s industry shall not be obstructed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition including I.A.No.2 of 2024, shall stand closed.