Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 709 (TS)

K. Bal Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-05-22

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed before this Court by way of House Motion. 2. Heard Sri A.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Disaster Response and Protection Agency and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Dammaiguda Municipality, appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioners claims originally one P.Bikshapathy was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.10.22 guntas in Survey No.78/A and Ac.1-00 in Survey No.79, respectively situated at Cheeriyal Village, Kesara Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District., Out of which, he sold land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas in Survey No.78/A in favour of petitioner No.1 and one K.Mohan Reddy under a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.7792 of 2012, dated 11.12.2012 and their names were also mutated in the revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. Since then the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and they also constructed compound wall and laid fencing in part of the subject land and also doing cultivation as on date. 4. It is further stated that when the third parties are interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the subject property and trying to encroach the subject property, the unofficial respondents herein filed a written complaint, dated 13.03.2025 before the official respondents, followed by personal visits, as no action has been taken by the official respondents, the unofficial respondents filed W.P.No.11926 of 2025 before this Court and this Court disposed the said Writ Petition on 22.04.2025 directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein to forthwith take action on the complaint, dated 13.03.2025 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties therein and all other concerned/interested persons. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 21.05.2025, respondent No.2 and his staff came to the subject property and threatened them with dire consequences and further stated that they would demolish the subject property tomorrow i.e., 22.05.2025, though petitioners have shown their subject documents that the subject property was allotted by HMDA in the year 2011 to the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 21.05.2025, respondent No.2 and his staff came to the subject property and threatened them with dire consequences and further stated that they would demolish the subject property tomorrow i.e., 22.05.2025, though petitioners have shown their subject documents that the subject property was allotted by HMDA in the year 2011 to the petitioners. However, without considering the documents filed by the petitioners including mutation proceedings and also without conducting any enquiry the respondent No.2 is trying to illegally demolish the compound wall and threaten to take away the possession of the subject land on 22.05.2025, hence learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners subject property without following due process of law. 6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared virtually. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and having perused the material on record, it is clearly evident that there is a direction given by this Court to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein to forthwith take action on the complaint, dated 13.03.2025 given by unofficial respondent herein, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the all other concerned/interested persons. However, it is claimed that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to encroach the subject property without following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11926 of 2025 on 22.04.2025. 8. However, it is claimed that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to encroach the subject property without following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11926 of 2025 on 22.04.2025. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that in pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.11926 of 2025, dated 22.04.2025, they have already initiated the enquiry on 20.05.2025 and further submitted that the said enquiry is pending and not yet concluded, as on today and the complaint, dated 13.03.2025 filed by the unofficial respondents herein will be consider during the course of enquiry and further submitted that Joint Inspection was conducted along with respective parties including petitioners and they fairly conceded that no reasoned order is passed on the said compliant till date, as such, the question of respondent Nos.2 and 3 or their officials visiting the subject property as alleged by the petitioners does not arise and further stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 will follow due process of law before initiating any action on the subject property and the petitioners are only apprehending that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 will demolish the subject property. 9. Recording the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, it appears that petitioners are only apprehending and it is only an assumption of the petitioner that the respondents may demolish and dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. It is also evident from the record that and the submission made by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the said enquiry was conducted 20.05.2025 and there was also joint inspection made by the respondents along with the petitioners and also it is evident that the petitioner is also a party to the enquiry. 10. In view of the submission made by respondent Nos.2 & 3 that they are not intending to take any coercive steps pending decision on the enquiry. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have no cause of action for approaching this Court for fresh direction, as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have admitted that they will not interfere or demolish the subject property without following due procedure contemplated under law and without passing final orders over the complaint of the unofficial respondents, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.11926 of 2025 on 22.04.2025. 11. 11. Hence, for the said reasons this Writ Petition is disposed of, recording the submission made by the respondents Nos.2 & 3 and directing the respondents to communicate the order passed by the respondents in the said enquiry to the parties all concerned, until then the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against petitioners in respect of the subject property. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.