Telangana High Court
Dachepally Narender vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 4235 OF 2025
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notices Nos.GP/08/2025 dated 20.01.2025 and GP/10/2025 dated 27.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.6 for removal of structures in Plot Nos.126, 125/A in Survey No.162/A, situated at Indresham village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, bounded by North- Plot No.94, South- Plot No.92, East- Plot No.100, West-30 feet wide road as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Grampanchayath Act and Rules and consequently to set aside the same and to pass other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of open Plot No.93, B-Block in Survey No.161/1, extent of 200 Sq.yards, situated at Royal Estate, Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the said plot was bounded by North- Plot No.94, South- Plot No.92, East- Plot No.100, West-30 feet wide road. The petitioner claims to have 2 purchased the same from one K.Bheem Rao, S/o.K.Balaiah for a valid sale consideration through a registered Doc.No.22131/2013, dated 30.12.2013 and his pre-predecessor K.Bheem Rao, i.e., petitioner's vendor, had purchased the said open plot from one B.Srishailam, S/o.B.Shivaiah, through a registered sale deed Doc.no.29801/2006, dated 30.11.2006, who had purchased the same from one M.Rajakumar, S/o.Subba Rao, through a registered sale deed Doc.No.19633/2005, dated 20.12.2005. It is stated that the Raj Kumar had purchased the said plot from one Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Batchu Venkata Ramaiah, through a registered sale deed Doc.No.5377/2004, dated 24.03.2004 and the Said Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, had purchased from one T.Ajit Singh, S/o.Late T.Jairaj Singh through registered sale deed Doc.No.2405 of 1993, dated 03.08.1993. Thus, it can be seen that there has been several transactions in respect of the said plot and the petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot ever since from the date of purchase. It is stated that after mobilizing of the funds for construction of a house, the petitioner had approached the respondent No.6 for permission for construction and the respondent No.6 has granted the permission vide 3 Sl.No.50/GP/2022, dated 22.03.2022. Subsequent to the construction being done, the house number was also allotted by the respondent No.6 and the petitioner claims to be paying the property tax, electricity charges, etc. It is alleged that when the respondent No.7 tried to grab the plot of the petitioner, the petitioner has made a complaint before the Patancheru Police Station and the Police registered a case in Crime No.403 of 2024, under Sections 448, 427 of IPC and same is pending consideration. It is further alleged that the respondent No.7 and one Madagoni Chakradhar Goud have created fake and bogus documents and have filed W.P.No.30931 of 2024 for taking action against construction being carried out by the writ petitioner by alleging that it was illegal and unauthorized and the same was disposed of at the admission stage by this Court directing the respondents No.5 and 6 to take appropriate action for removal of the unauthorized constructions, after issuing notice to respondent No.7 therein in accordance with law and accordingly, the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said notices have not been served on the petitioner, but have been pasted on the wall of the property of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be considered as service of notice. 4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the original layout, the Plot of the petitioner is numbered as Plot No.93 and subsequently, another layout has been brought in showing the said Plot as Plot No.126 and the unofficial respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land under the garb of the second layout.
4. At the time of hearing, basing on the arguments advanced on 01.05.2025, this Court had appointed Advocate Commissioner to visit the site i.e., Plot No.93 in Survey No.162/1 and Plot No.126 in Survey No.162/A of Indresam Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District on 06.05.2025 in the presence of both the parties and to take measurements of the respective plots as per the respective sale deeds of the parties and to submit a report before this Court on the next date of hearing. The Advocate Commissioner has accordingly, submitted a report on 09.06.2025.
5. The unofficial respondent No.7 also filed a counter affidavit along with stay vacate petition on 27.03.2025 and the official respondents have filed a counter affidavit on 23.06.2025, supporting the stand of the unofficial respondents. 5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, submitted that the unofficial respondents are claiming the property by virtue of the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.37/2008. It is submitted that the defendant in the said suit was a dead person and in proof thereof, he has filed a copy of the original death certificate, which shows that Kishan Lal, S/o.Brij Mohan Lal, died in the year 1998. It is submitted that O.S.No.37/2008 was thus filed against the deceased person and an ex-parte decree was obtained, on the basis of which the respondents are trying to prove their possession over the property. Therefore, according to him the title of the respondents is not proved.
7. As regards the Advocate Commissioner's report, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the same, stating that it is biased and one-sided and that the Advocate Commissioner has not considered the submissions of the petitioner or the documents submitted by the petitioner for making the measurements and therefore, the said report cannot be considered.
8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, however, submitted that they have purchased the property 6 through an agreement of sale and have approached Civil Court for a decree and the Civil Court has held in favour of the unofficial respondents, against which the writ petitioner has filed the appeal and the same has also been dismissed. He submitted that the writ petitioner has not disclosed any of these facts in the writ petition and therefore, he has not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore, he does not deserve any relief in the matter. He further submitted that there is only one layout and the respondents No.7 and 8 are the owners of the Plot Nos.125 and 126 and it is the writ petitioner who is trying to grab their property. He further submitted that Plot No.93 is allegedly measuring 200 sq.yards, whereas Plot Nos.125 and 126 are measuring only 155.55 sq.yards each and the Advocate Commissioner's report clearly proves that the two plots of 155 sq.yards each, are on site. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the identity of the plot in question is the issue before this Court. In order to verify the same, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the extent of land available on site along with 7 boundaries mentioned in respect of sale deeds. The Advocate Commissioner's report is infact, in favour of the unofficial respondents. However, it is noticed that the petitioner is claiming ownership of the plot through registered sale deeds, whereas the unofficial respondents are referring to an agreement of sale and a suit for specific performance which has been filed allegedly against a dead person and an ex-parte decree has been obtained. It is another issue that the said ex- parte decree has been confirmed in the first appeal and the petitioner has filed a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree. When compared, both the layouts appeared to be in Survey No.162/1 and are bounded by the roads i.e., Dhoulathabadhu road and Rameswaram Banda road and the position of Plot Nos.93 and 126 also appear to be the same. The second layout appeared to be signed by the Panchayat Secretary on 30.04.2007, whereas the first layout was signed by the Sarpanch in the year 1987. The first document was executed in favour of the pre-predecessor in the interest of the petitioner is of 1993 by the GPA holder of Kishan Lal, S/o.Late Brij Mohan Lal in favour of Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, in the year 1993 and it is a registered document i.e., Doc.No.2405/1993. The second document is also a registered document vide Doc.No.5377/2004 8 and the third document i.e., Doc.No.19633/2005 and thereafter, the Doc.No.22131/2013. Therefore, the property has been transferred in the name of the petitioner herein by virtue of the registered documents and the area is shown as 200 Sq.yards.
10. The respondents No.7 and 8 seem to have acquired the property by virtue of the ex-parte judgment and decree in O.S.No.37/2008. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2008 against one Kishan Lal and an ex-parte decree has been obtained and Kishan Lal, as per the death certificate produced by the petitioner, died in the year 1998 itself. If the same is proved and the decree is set aside, the respondents No.7 and 8 would not get valid title in the property. The petitioner has already filed a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the copies of the same are also filed, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8. Therefore, the documents of the respondents No.7 and 8 are very much dependent on the outcome of the suit filed by the writ petitioner. The facts mentioned by the petitioner as well as the respondents need verification. The respondent No.6 in its counter affidavit had stated that it has followed due process of law and issued 9 notices dated 20.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 and thereafter, demolished the illegal construction in compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.30931/2024. Therefore, it appears that there is no structure in the site at present. This Court therefore directs all the parties to maintain the Status-quo as on today till the identity of the plot is established in the Civil Court in the suit filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.37/2008.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 23.07.2025 bak