Telangana High Court
Sri Reddy Uday Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.14637 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Sri J.R.Manohar, learned standing counsel for Endowment appearing for respondent No.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"... to declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly of the Respondent No.3 in disturbing the construction activities in progress and trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the open plot bearing Nos.95 and 96/part in Sector-III, B-Block in Survey No.117/Part, admeasuring 800.00 Sq Yrds equivalent to 668.8 Sq Mtrs belongs to the Petitioner situated at Alakapoor Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipat Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal arbitrary and against Article 300-A of the Constitution of India without having appropriate title and without following the due process of Law and consequently to direct the Respondents more particularly the 3rd Respondent and her henchmen not to disturb the construction activities in progress and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the open plot belonging to the Petitioner.2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot bearing Nos.95 and 96/part in Sector-III, B-Block in Survey No.117/Part, admeasuring 800.00 Sq Yrds equivalent to 668.8 Sq Mtrs situated at Alakapoor Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipat Mandal, Ranga Reddy (hereafter referred as 'subject proprty'), registered at Sub-Registrar, Gandhipet vide Deed document No.7898 of 2023, dated 23.06.2023 and further submits that Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) have also issued approved layout plan to the Survey Nos.117 and the revenue authorities had also conducted survey, vide File No.K3/06/16 and shown the subject property in Sy No.117 and also issued layout plan and Tonch Map. Thereafter, petitioner intends to construct 1 stilt + 5 upper floor building and obtained Municipal permission, vide Permit No.0198/BP/3128/2024, dated 10.02.2024, through Manikonda Municipal Authorities and started construction on the subject property. As things stood, the respondent No.3 visited the subject property and threatened the petitioner to stop construction over the subject property by stating that the subject property belong to Endowment Department and illegally stopped the construction work without giving any notice.
4. Learned Standing counsel for Endowment has placed written instruction of respondent No.2, wherein paragraph Nos.3 to 7 reads as:
3. It Is submitted that the subject temple is endowed valuable endowed property in Sy.No.116, Extent Acs 13.24 gts , Sy.No 112, Extent Acs.11.03 gts, Sy.No.125 Extent Acs 3.37 gts (for brevity the subject temple 3 properties) situated at Neknampur Vilage, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District as per the 43 register of the temple and also recorded in the Inam fair register which is maintained by the then collector, Hyderabad district in the year 1965 which is also accept as a Exhibit in all courts of Law. The Deputy Collector & Tahsildhar, Rajendranagar, R.R. District has passed mutation orders in favour of the temple vide. D/1350/2015., Dt.06.09.2016 and the present Revenue Records also stand in the name of the temple the deity name is also recorded in the present Dharani portal.
4. The above lands have been prohibited for registration under 22(A) of the registration Act 1908 in the year 2008 and also prohibited in the I.R.G.S website and also notified the above lands under Gazette.No.28., dt. 9.11.2022 by the District collector, Rangareddy District of Neknampur Village.
5. It is submitted that the instant writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed in limini because the land being started construction by the petitioner herein falls in sy.No. 116 of Neknampur Village but not in Sy.No.117. The petitioner herein showing documents of property documents in Sy.No.117 of Neknampur Village is started construction work in Sy.No.116 of Neknampur Village, trespassing the endowed property of the subject temple.
6. The petitioner herein may be put to strict proof of the same that validly constructing in Sy.No.117 of Neknampur Village., but not in the subject temple property in Sy.No.116 of Neknampur Village. The petitioner herein has not filed single cogent evidence that his scheduled property falls in Sy.No.117 of Neknampur Village.
7. It is submitted that several news articles published in the Daily News papers about the encroachment of subject temple properties and to protect the subject temple properties the illegal precast walls were demolished on dated 22.03.2024 with the assistance of the Revenue and police Authorities and sign boards were erected in the above subject temple properties. The petitioner herein, has removed the sign board 4 erected in the subject temple property in Sy.No.116 and as such a complaint was lodged before the SHO Narsingi and the same was registered vide FIR No.425/2024, dated 28.03.2024."
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's subject land falls under Survey No.117 and not in Survey No.116 of Neknampur Village as alleged by the learned standing counsel for the respondents and submits that Mankonda Municipal Authorities has also accorded permission to the petitioner for construction on the subject property i.e., Survey No.117 of Neknampur Village and submits that petitioner is making construction in Sy No.117 and pray this Court to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the subject property without following due process of law.
6. A query being asked, whether the respondent authorities had issued notice to the petitioner before taking action on the petitioner's subject property?, learned standing counsel would submit that the respondent authorities had orally instructed the petitioner not to make further construction, however no notice has been served on the petitioner and further submit that respondent authorities will follow due process of law before initiating action against the unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner.
7. Recording the submission made by learned counsel on either side, and without going into the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of 5 with a direction to the respondent authorities to follow due process of law, if they are intending to take action against the construction already raised by the petitioner on the subject property.
8. It is made clear that both the parties shall maintain status-quo for a period of three (3) weeks and needless to mention that this order will not preclude both the parties to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 12.06.2024 SHA