Telangana High Court
P.Mangamma, vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.338 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following relief:-
"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in dispossessing the petitioners from their dwelling house total property H.No.1-6-219/3/5/D admeasuring 503 square Yards, in survey No.180, situated at Parsigutta, Zamistanpur, Secunderabad is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional without following due procedure of law and violating the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the above said house and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
3. It is stated that the petitioner's father was the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.219/3/5/D admeasuring 503 Square Yards in Survey No.180, situated at Parsigutta, Zamistanpur, Secunderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2281 of 1966 dated 05.08.1966. It is further stated that the petitioner acquired the said property under registered Will Deed, dated 08.01.1990 and after the death of her father, she became the absolute owner of the subject property. It is further stated that the petitioners vendors and their predecessors in interest are the absolute owners of the 2 CVBR, J wp_338_2025 said property and having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide document No.3021 of 1965, dated 15.08.1965 and they have constructed a house and residing in the said property and the said house is assessed to the property tax and also obtained all necessary permissions.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without issuing any notice and without following the procedure are frequently making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents are not having any power or authority to evict the petitioner who has acquired the property under will deed, dated 08.01.1990, on the ground that the petitioner's possession over the said property is not one of the recent origin. Even if the respondents are having any claim over the said property, they have to approach the competent civil Court seeking eviction of the petitioner, since the petitioner is in long possession as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao 1.
1 1982 LawSuit (SC) 81 = 1982 (2) SCC 134 3 CVBR, J wp_338_2025
6. Since it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice are frequently interfering with the possession of the petitioner, ends of the justice would be met if the respondents are directed if they are having claim over the property claimed by the petitioner, have to follow the due procedure, in accordance with law.
7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Date: 06.01.2025 ns