Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 665 (TS)

P. Surendar v. State of Telangana

2025-05-14

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 03/05/2025 directing the petitioner to remove Lava Kusha Water purifying center constructed by the petitioner on assignment plot of his mother in Sy.No.4 and also his purchased land in Sy.No.214 at Pathapally village, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District though the petitioner have constructed the said shed after obtaining permission of the Grampanchayat and also without making any encroachment on the village road as illegal unlawful contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the above Lava Kusha Water purifying bunk of the petitioner without following due process of law as the petitioner constructed the said shed on his own land without encroaching upon any village road and pass.. .” 2. Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Notice in respect of respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 3. Brief facts of the case: The petitioner is claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the open plot admeasuring 16.98 sq. yards situated at Pathapally village of Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District and the same was purchased through registered document by paying valuable sale consideration and also obtained Dharani passbook vide Khata no.60284 in the name of his wife Smt. P. Jyothi and thereafter, applied to the Tahsildar for grant of Nala conversion permission in respect of the above said property. He further averred that the Government granted assignment patta certificate in favour of the petitioner’s mother, namely P. Yellamma, to the land in Sy.No.4 on 06.09.2011. Since the above purchased land in Sy.No.214 and also assignment patta land of his mother situated in Sy.No.4 are adjacent to each other and accordingly, the petitioner constructed temporary shed for establishment of Lava Kusha Water Center by obtaining permission from the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat and he has been running said water plant since, 2018 by supplying purified water to the villagers at cheapest cost. The petitioner further averred that the petitioner obtained certificate of registration for manufacturing trading and supplying of bottled and packaging mineral drinking water in the water treatment plant and the same is being renewed from time to time and the same is valid up to 04.12.2017. Respondent No.4, who is Ex-Sarpanch of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat, bore grudge against the petitioner and at his instance, respondent No.3 issued notice on 03.05.2025 alleging that the petitioner constructed the mineral water shed without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and also encroached upon the village road and directed the petitioner to remove the mineral water shed within a period of three (3) days from the date of receipt of the notice. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.05.2025 to the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, stating that the petitioner has not encroached upon any portion of the road and eking out his livelihood by running the mineral water plant and he also supplying the mineral water to the villagers at low cost. The villagers also submitted a representation to the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, on 05.05.2025 requesting him to issue necessary directions to respondent No.3 not to remove the mineral water plant. But, respondent No.3, without following the due procedure, is trying to demolish the mineral water plant of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has established the mineral water plant in the year 2018 after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authority and since then he has been running the said plant and the petitioner has not encroached upon any portion of the road as alleged. The villagers also submitted a representation on 05.05.2025 stating that the petitioner is supplying the mineral water with low cost in the village and the mineral water plant is required for the villagers. The petitioner also submitted a representation before the District Collector, Wanaparthy District, on 05.05.2025. Respondent No.2, without giving reasonable opportunity and without considering the representation submitted by the petitioners is trying to demolish the mineral water shed. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, issued notice on 21.04.2025 directing the petitioner to submit explanation within three days on the ground the petitioner constructed the mineral water shed by encroaching the road. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, issued notice on 21.04.2025 directing the petitioner to submit explanation within three days on the ground the petitioner constructed the mineral water shed by encroaching the road. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation. The Gram Panchayat has rightly issued the impugned notice for removal of unauthorized construction within a period of three days and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to permit the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned notice, dated 03.05.2025, and on such explanation, respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has not opposed the said submission. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat issued notice on 21.04.2025 as to why the water shed should not be removed from the subject property and directed the petitioner to submit explanation within three (3) days. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner has constructed mineral water plant in the year 2018 in Sy.No.214. However, the petitioner has not submitted explanation to respondent No.3, pursuant to the notices, dated 21.04.2024 or 03.05.2025. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted representation before the District Collector on 23.04.2025. The petitioner is also enclosed copy of the representation submitted by the villagers to the District Collector, dated 05.05.2025. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the impugned notice. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned notice dated 03.05.2025 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by raising all the grounds which are available under law. On such explanation, respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks by giving on opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, respondent No.3 shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. 10. On such explanation, respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks by giving on opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, respondent No.3 shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.