Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 688 (TS)

Pallem Suvarna v. State of Telangana

2025-05-21

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of writ of Mandamus, considering the Notice, Dated 23.04.2024 issued by respondent No 3 to the writ Petition, Uncalled, Unjustifiable and is in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, qua abrogating Article 300-A of constitution of India, consequentially quash the Notice, Dated 23.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3 to the writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri M.Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the subject property i.e., open place of non-agriculture total admeasuring area 2299 square yard equal to 1922.19 square meters in Survey Nos.284/RU/2/1/1 and 284/RU/2/1/1/1 situated at Kallakal village, Manoharabad, Medak District and the petitioner claiming his rights over the subject property basing on the registered gift deed bearing No.2882 of 2024 dated 25.07.2024 executed by her son. The petitioner erected her name board in the subject property for protecting the subject property as the subject property belongs to her. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 23.04.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the name board in the subject property within a period of seven (07) days otherwise respondent No.3 will take legal action. The action of respondent No.3 is gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 basing on the instructions furnished by Panchayat Raj submitted that the subject property was gifted in favour of respondents through a registered sale gift deed dated 23.03.2005 by Surya Developers to an extent of 2105½ square yards of land of the subject property. Though the petitioner is not having any right in respect of the subject property, the petitioner without submitting any explanation to the impugned notice dated 23.04.2025 straight away approached this Court by filing the writ petition and the same is not maintainable under the law. 6. Though the petitioner is not having any right in respect of the subject property, the petitioner without submitting any explanation to the impugned notice dated 23.04.2025 straight away approached this Court by filing the writ petition and the same is not maintainable under the law. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusing the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming rights over the subject property basing on the gift deeds. However, respondent No.3 straight away issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the name board within a period of seven (07) days without issuing any show cause notice. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of respective parties and without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, by directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to respondent No.3 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receiving such explanation, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing within a period of six (06) weeks. Till such time, respondent No.3 is directed not to take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds which are available under law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.