Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 657 (TS)

Poosa Vinay Kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-05-14

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 to 5 in demolishing illegal constructions made by the respondents 6 to 8 in the petitioner’s land in Survey No.49/1, admeasuring 400 sq.yards, out of 800 sq.yards, situated at Vidyanagar Colony Chunchupally Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District and also in allotting the house numbers bearing H.No.UC/VNC/249, H.No.3-1-114/1B for the said illegal construction made by the unofficial respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to take action in accordance in law and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the petitioner claims that his father while working as a Circle Inspector in Kothagudem, purchased land to an extent of 400 sq.yards, out of 800 sq.yards, in Survey No.49/1, situated at Vidyanagar Colony, Chunchupally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District in the petitioner’s name, from his vendor by name Sarada Rani, for valuable consideration through unregistered sale deed dated 28.07.1994 and the possession was also handed over to the petitioner and the balance of 400 sq.yards., was also sold to his aunt Smt.Rama Kumari, through unregistered agreement of sale deed 06.04.1994 and his aunt is also in possession of the said property. It is submitted that one Mr.Kuruma Mallaiah, S/o.Veeraiah, was the pattadar of the entire extent of land and he sold his property to one Chouthmal Kandelwal S/o.Goverdhan, in the year 1962 through an unregistered sale deed and in the year 01.05.1978 executed a registered sale deed bearing D.No.258/1978, dated 01.05.1978 for valuable consideration and the said Chouthmal Kandelwal has sold the open land admeasuring 400 sq.yards, to the petitioner’s vendor namely Boppana Sarada Rani through an unregistered sale deed dated 17.05.1990, who in turn sold the same to the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the posting of the petitioner’s father in different places on duty, the petitioner was residing in Hanmakonda and taking advantage of the same, the unofficial respondents have created concocted and fabricated documents with wrong survey numbers and have raised illegal construction and also got allotted house numbers being H.No.UC/VNC/249, H.No.3-1-114/1B and therefore, the petitioner approached the official respondents and made applications dated 06.07.2024, 11.07.2024 & 24.08.2024, requesting them to take action against the illegal construction raised in the petitioner’s land and to cancel the house numbers allotted to such illegal constructions. Since no action was taken on his representations, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. This Court, vide interim order dated 31.12.2024, had directed the respondents No.6 to 8 to stop further construction and also not to alienate the subject property until the next date of hearing. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has filed a counter affidavit stating that since it is a agency area, the transfer of property from tribal to non- tribal is not allowed and therefore, there are no registered documents and the transfers of properties in this area are taking place by way of simple sale deeds. It is also submitted that due to the above circumstances, no permissions are being granted for making any constructions in the area and therefore, all the constructions in the said area are without any permissions and after the construction, the house numbers are being granted for collection of service tax. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.6 and 7 also filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no new construction being made in Survey No.49/1 and that the construction is being made by them in Survey No.163/1. It is further submitted that construction in Survey No.49/1 was completed long back and house numbers were also allotted and that the respondents No.6 and 7 also owned the property in Survey No.49/1. 6. Both the parties have filed the photographs of the building under construction. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the unauthorized construction for which house numbers have been allotted to the respondents No.6 and 7. 6. Both the parties have filed the photographs of the building under construction. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the unauthorized construction for which house numbers have been allotted to the respondents No.6 and 7. As stated by the respondent No.5, in his counter affidavit, the house numbers are being allotted after the construction is completed and the petitioner is aggrieved by the constructions made for which house numbers were granted in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7. The photographs filed show the construction in progress. Therefore, the issue seems to be the identity of the plot belonging to the writ petitioner which is allegedly in Survey No.49/1, whereas the construction in progress is claimed to be in Survey No.163/1. 8. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority for identification of his plot and thereafter take steps in accordance with law to recover the possession, if he is not having the possession of the same. This Court, under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot interfere at this stage. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.