Telangana High Court
Yanala Anantha Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.9304 of 2026
Dated: 26.03.2026
Between:
Yanala Anantha Reddy ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development
Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and five others
... Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
''... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the impugned proceedings Rc.No. GP Pasara /111/2026 dated 23.03.2026 for demolition of the construction of house No.580 situated at Pasara Nagaram Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District within one day and served on 25.03.2026 as per the orders of the Court in W.P.No.26816 of 2024 dated 21.01.2026 filed by respondent No.6, inspite of the orders the petitioner liberty to submitted a representation to the respondent authorities liberty is accordingly representation dated 11.03.2026 received on 11.03.2026 without passing any order got issued impugned notice dated 23.03.2026 vide proceedings No.GP Pasra/ 111/2026 for demolition by dispossess within one day is illegal as illegal, arbitrary, liable to be set aside against the principles of natural justice Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish pending representation dated 11.03.2026 as per orders in WP.No.26816 of 2024 dated 21.01.2026 of construction of tin sheet shed for demolition 2 house No.580, situated at Pasara Nagaram Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District and pass such other order or orders ..."
2. Heard Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr.S.Vivek, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr.Santosh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property, bearing H.No.5-80, situated at Pasara Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District by virtue of Will Deed dated 12.07.2021 executed by one Md.Salmabee. Md.Salmabee expired on 22.04.2022 and thereafter, the petitioner is in the possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, respondent No.5/Panchayat Secretary, Pasra Nagaram Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District issued notice in proceedings Rc.No.GPP/ illegal construction/2023, dated 08.02.2023 to the petitioner by directing him to vacate the subject house to enable the Gram Panchayat to demolish the structures existing in his 3 property for the purpose of road-widening, without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and others filed W.P.No.4553 of 2023 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.02.2023 in W.P.No.4553 of 2023 disposed of the same. Para Nos.7 and 8 of the said order as extracted as hereunder:-
2. In view of rival contentions of both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to follow due procedure in accordance with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquiring the land of 1st petitioner for the purpose of road-widening. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for demolition of the subject property of the petitioners.
3. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.26816 of 2024 before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 5 to demolish the illegal encroachment made on his property which was obstructing the road from Pasra to Karlapalli and to compensate him for such acquisition. Vide order dated 21.01.2026 this Court had disposed of the W.P.No.26816 of 4 2024. Para Nos.4 and 5 of the said order are extracted as under:-
"4. Notices have been served on the unofficial respondents. However, no counter affidavit has been filed by them till date. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the structure raised within the 33 feet setback of the petitioner's property is unauthorized and is obstructing the free flow of traffic, thereby causing inconvenience to commuters. It is stated that the notices for removal of the said structure were issued to the unofficial respondents on 18.01.2023, but no explanation has been given by them till date. Since no counter affidavit was filed by the unofficial respondents and in view of the photographs obtained from Google Maps filed by the petitioners, which shows that the subject construction is obstructing the road, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to take action against the said construction in accordance with law. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 requested for liberty to make representation to the respondent authorities. Liberty is accordingly given.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that pursuant to the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26816 of 2024, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.03.2026 before respondent No.5/ Panchayat Secretary, Pasra Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District, Telangana requesting to stop the demolition and the road widening process for the reason that no compensation was paid to him for such acquisition. But no action was taken by respondent No.5 on the said representation. Rather, respondent No.5 issued the impugned notice vide Rc.No.GP Pasara/111/2026 dated 5 23.03.2026 by granting one day time to the petitioner to remove his belongings from the property. He submits that the act of respondent No.5 deprives the petitioner's right and interest over the property. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and seeks indulgence of this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the house of the petitioner is abutting the road leading to Moddulagudem cross roads which is causing inconvenience to the public at large; that frequent accidents are occurring in the said junction on account of traffic congestion. In those circumstances a proposal was mooted by the Gram Panchayat for taking up road widening process. Hence, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner for acquisition of his property to ensure public safety and convenience.
7. He further contends that sufficient time was accorded to the petitioner to set right his belongings and vacate the property; that though the representation dated 11.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner is pending for consideration before respondent No.5, appropriate orders would be passed 6 by respondent No.5 in short span on time. Stating so, he seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition in the interest of public at large.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings concede to the submissions of learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5.
9. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reference in the impugned notice 23.03.2026 with regard to the representation dated 11.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner and the same is issued without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth his contentions which is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
10. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited 7 and another Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh and another 1, wherein it is held that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing and a prior intimation of such a move is necessary, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed against the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the same.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice in Rc.No.GP Pasara/111/2026 dated 23.03.2026 issued by respondent No.5. Further, respondent No.5 is directed to examine the representation dated 11.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, by putting the petitioner and interested parties including respondent No.6 on notice and affording them sufficient opportunity of hearing by taking note of the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4553 of 2023 and the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26816 of 2024. Since notice is 1 AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1770 8 directed upon respondent No.6, further service of notice on respondent No.6 stands dispensed with. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL 26.03.2026 ESP 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL 156 W.P.No.9304 of 2026 Dated: 26.03.2026 ESP 10 In "State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others"
In Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 dated 26.10.2016 The issue which arises for our consideration is, whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, along with dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts. The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."