Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 494 (TS)

Nizamuddin v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 06.06.2022 in Case No.212/2021/A3-PTS passed by the 2 nd respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act , by confirming the order dt. 21.09.2020 passed by the 3 rd respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for permission to construct a building in and over the property assigned to the petitioner herein, i.e., plot admeasuring 100 square yards in Survey No.513 of Muthangi Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, vide Lr.No.184/GPM/2020 dt. 21.09.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 3 rd respondent to grant permission as sought for. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be a landless poor and therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has allotted a residential plot admeasuring 100 square yards in Survey No.513 of Muthangi Village in the year 1998 to the petitioner to enable him to construct a small house and vide proceedings No.B/1313/1998, permission was granted to construct a house. It is submitted that the petitioner constructed a house over the said assigned land and the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi has assessed the said property and allotted the house number as 6-99 vide order dt. 30.07.2004. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer thereafter conducted a survey of Survey No.513 and fixed boundaries and thereafter issued tonch map with specific boundaries as described in the tonch map schedule. Thereafter, the petitioner demolished the small hut with an intention to construct small rooms and therefore, he applied for grant of building permission on 17.06.2013 for permission to construct a residential house. However, the Gram Panchayat did not grant permission and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the District Panchayat Officer and when the same was also not considered, he filed W.P.No.9131 of 2015 which was disposed of by order dt. 24.02.2015 to consider the application filed for grant of permission. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer to submit a report as to the existence of the road or covered under the road widening. 24.02.2015 to consider the application filed for grant of permission. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer to submit a report as to the existence of the road or covered under the road widening. However, the said request was not acted upon and therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12355 of 2018 seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to send the report as requested by the Panchayat Secretary so as to enable the Gram Panchayat, Muthangi to grant permission as sought for. Vide orders dt. 12.03.2020, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Tahsildar to give clarification as sought for by the 5 th respondent so as to enable the Gram Panchayat to consider the representation of the petitioner for construction of a building. It is stated that the 4 th respondent Tahsildar has submitted his report vide Lr.No.B/900/2020 dt. 03.09.2020 stating that the land was resumed by the Government for the alleged violations and there is no land in existence and the same is covered under extension of National Highway No.9. Contending that the land of the petitioner was never resumed by the Government, the petitioner demanded the authorities to furnish the record relating to the said resumption of the site, but the authorities failed to do so and therefore, the petitioner made a representation dt. 28.10.2020 to the 4 th respondent to furnish the information/documents in relation to the cancellation of assignment granted in favour of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. In response thereto, vide Lr.No.B/1163/2020 dt. 04.11.2020, the Tahsildar gave a reply that no proceedings are available in the office. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent herein issued proceedings dt. 21.09.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of permission for construction of house. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18443 of 2021 challenging the order of rejection passed by the 3 rd respondent and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order dt. 10.08.2021 with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the appellate authority assailing the order of rejection passed by the 3 rd respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent who dismissed the appeal vide order dt. 06.06.2022 and challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent who dismissed the appeal vide order dt. 06.06.2022 and challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions made in the writ affidavit and submitted that the respondents have not shown any documents whatsoever about the resumption of the land of the petitioner and cancellation of the assignment of the petitioner and therefore, the orders of the respondents are illegal and unsustainable. 4. The 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit confirming that the petitioner was allotted an extent of 100 square yards of land in Survey No.513 of Muthangi Village and that the writ petitioner has started construction of 3 shops instead of constructing a residential house in the allotted site and thus violating the conditions laid down in patta certificate, i.e., it is for a residential unit and therefore, a letter was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy to take necessary action in the matter vide Lr.No.B/492/2003 dt. 28.07.2005 and based on this report, the Revenue Divisional officer, Sangareddy has also forwarded the same to the District Collector vide Lr.No.C1/2075/2005 and thus, the house site patta certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled by the then District Collector, Sangareddy vide proceedings No.E1/2806/2002 dt. 04.04.2006 and it was also directed to resume the same and take it into Government custody. It is stated that the land was accordingly resumed and the said land was acquired for formation of laying the road of National Highway No.9 and the subject land was not notified under the Land Acquisition Act as it is a Government land. It is stated that the writ petitioner, with an ulterior motive and malafide intention to grab the Government land, has started construction abutting to his allotted house site and he is claiming the same to be his own property. It is stated that the petitioner was directed to submit any documents of the land in his occupation and to stop the illegal encroachment and construction work taken up in the Government land in Survey No.513, and FIR No.249/2005 was also filed against him. It is stated that the petitioner has not replied to the notice issued by the respondents and instead, has submitted a representation dt. It is stated that the petitioner has not replied to the notice issued by the respondents and instead, has submitted a representation dt. 12.06.2006 requesting to revoke the cancellation orders of the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings No.E1/2806/2002 dt. 04.04.2006. It is stated that the matter was enquired into and it was revealed that the petitioner is not residing in Muthangi or Isnapur villages and that he is residing in Mehdipatnam with his family members and that he is not having ration card and photo identity card and that he is also having immovable properties at Muthangi and Isnapur and therefore, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a landless poor and therefore, he is not eligible for allotment of land and his case was considered for revocation of cancellation of the house patta as his annual income was more than Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, the 4 th respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Along with the additional counter affidavit, the proceedings of the District Collector dt. 04.04.2026 cancelling the house site patta issued to Sri Nazeeruddin, i.e., the petitioner herein, the copy of the panchanama dt. 10.04.2006 and the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dt. 28.07.2025 are enclosed. 5. The petitioner had filed a reply/rejoinder affidavit to the counter filed by the 4 th respondent denying the averments made in the additional counter affidavit. He submitted that all of these documents were never supplied to the petitioner in spite of his specific request under the Right to Information Act and therefore, they cannot be relied upon. He therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order and to direct the respondents to grant permission for construction to the petitioner in the subject land. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the undisputed fact as admitted in the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 is that the petitioner was allotted 100 square yards of land in Survey No.513 of Muthangi Village for construction of a residential house in the year 1998. The allegation that the petitioner constructed commercial shops instead of residential units and has occupied the Government land abutting his allotted site, was also taken by the respondents in the counter filed in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.18623 of 2003 filed by the petitioner as observed by this Court in its order dt. 29.01.2004. The allegation that the petitioner constructed commercial shops instead of residential units and has occupied the Government land abutting his allotted site, was also taken by the respondents in the counter filed in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.18623 of 2003 filed by the petitioner as observed by this Court in its order dt. 29.01.2004. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the land abutting to the petitioner’s property was already sold in public auction in G.O.Ms.No.730 dt. 21.09.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.293 dt. 31.05.2002 to one Sri Pothireddygari Ramreddy. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.114 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for perpetual injunction in respect of his allotted plot and the same was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner has violated the directions of the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition that the plaintiff should not encroach into the Government land and that he should confine to his extent of 100 square yards which was allotted to him and that the plaintiff could not discharge the burden cast upon him to seek perpetual injunction against the defendants therein and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. It is noticed that the appeal and the second appeal against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy have also been dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.16718 of 2005 not to interfere with the construction of residential house by the petitioner on the 100 square yards in Survey No.513 and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, through his office Lr.No.B/492/2003 dt. 28.07.2005, has stated that the land to an extent of 100 square yards in Survey No.513, i.e., the Government land, has been allotted to the petitioner herein vide patta certificate No.B/1313/98 dt. .12.1998 for construction of residential house and that the petitioner has violated the conditions laid down in the final patta certificate and has constructed three (3) shops in his allotted land and that the petitioner has no right to occupy the neighbouring land of one Sri Pothireddygari Ramreddy who purchased the same in public auction for Rs.23,62,500/- and the sale amount was also remitted into the Government Treasury. This Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court on earlier occasion, but the details of all the cases have not been mentioned in the writ affidavit. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is having certain immovable properties in Muthangi and Isnapur and that he is also getting a monthly rent of Rs.4,800/- from the shops and the residential building existing at Isnapur X roads and therefore, he is not eligible for house site patta. In the reply affidavit filed to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has denied the allegations of the 4 th respondent and has taken a ground that there was no resumption of his site and no notice was ever placed or any proceedings issued to the petitioner regarding cancellation of house site patta which was granted. Therefore, this Court had directed the respondents to file the relevant documents and the said documents are filed along with the additional counter affidavit. The petitioner in the reply filed to the additional counter affidavit has denied the averments in the counter affidavit but he has not specifically denied that he has made a request for revocation of the cancellation order dt. 04.04.2006. It clearly shows that the petitioner was aware of the cancellation order though the cancellation order does not refer to any notice issued to the petitioner prior to such cancellation. However, there is no challenge to the cancellation order dt. 04.04.2006. The allegation in the additional counter affidavit that the petitioner has not constructed a residential house, but has constructed three (3) shops which were subsequently directed to be removed, is not denied by the petitioner. No evidence is placed by the petitioner to the contrary. It is also not denied that the petitioner is having an annual income of more than Rs.24,000/- and therefore, he is not entitled for house site patta. In spite of the relevant documents being filed along with the additional counter affidavit, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the cancellation of the house site patta issued to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the matter at this stage. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if he is so advised. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the matter at this stage. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if he is so advised. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.