Sarella William Peter Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Speeiel Original Jurisdietion)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

IA.NO:2 OF 2021

¶7

IN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 14876 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sarella William Peter, S/o Sarella Peter, Aged about 60^years, Occ. Retd. Employee, Rl/o H.No .12-2-3913,^{Padminipeta,BlakBridge,} Amalapuram, East Godavari.

¶11

Sarella Ravi Kumar, S/o Sarella Peter,^{Aged about 58years,} Occ. Pvt. Employee, F/o SRT 581/7-2-836,^{Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶12

Smt. P. Lalitha, W/o P.^{RaghuVeer Verma,Aged about 56 years,} Occ. Housewife, Rl/o LIG 489,^{7th Phase,Near GeethanjaliSchool,KPHB} Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Ameerpet Mandal,^Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the Highcourt may be pleased to postthe} matter under caption of^"FoR BEING^{MENTIONED', for passing appropriate order in} W,P.No. 14876 of 2021 , in the^{interestof justice.}

¶20

This petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe petition and the} Memorandum of^grounds filed^{in support thereof and upon hearingthe arguments of} Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, dounsel^{for the Petitionersand GP for Revenue on behalf of} Respondents, the Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶22

I.A. NO. 2 0F 2o2t IN WRIT PETITION No. 1.4876 of 2021

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Court vide order, dated 20.lO.2O2l disposed of W.p. No. I4a76 o{ 202 1 directing the Trial Court i.e., the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, to dispose of O.S. No. 4299 of 20 1O as expediriously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶25

Now, the petitioners have fiied I.A. No. 2 of 2O2l contending that in spite of there being injunction orders against the respondents, in violation of the same, they have erected a sign board indicating that the subject property is^,Government land,; that without seeking the vacation of the interim orders, the respondents ought not to have erected the sign board, more so, when there is an injunction order subsisting against them.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have obtained valid building permission and also raised pillars, but however, due to the interlerence by the respondents, the petitioners could not complete the construction. That the petitioners have spent huge amounts for obtaining necessary permissions and procured men and machinery lor construction. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to modify the orders of this Court dated 20.10.2021 passed in W.p. No. 14876 of 2021.

¶27

A perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition, goes to show that the mother of the petitioners had purchased the subject property through registered sale deed, dated 16.01.1967 and the link documents also indicate that the vendors of the

¶28

petitioners' motlier were hav;ng valid title to the subject property. The property tax receipts, water receipts, electricity receipts etc., in the name of the mother of the petitioner, show that the mother of the petitioners was in possession and occupation of the said property. Even the Town Survey and Register Extract shows that Town Survey No. 23, Block-A, Ward No.3 is house site bearing house No. 8-3-167 /6 and the same is correlated to Sy. No. 127 /1 to 61139. That the then Government of Andhra pradesh has also issued G.O.Rt. No.68 M.A., Health and Municipal Administration Department, dated 05.02.1972 granting building permissions to the plot holders, who have paid their respective share of betterment charges and layout fee and that the vendor of mother of petitioners had obtained tentative layout and obtained order of relaxation and paid the betterment charges vide LR. No. 41lTplA 1173, d,ated 09.01.1973. Even the photos filed by the petitioners also show that the petitioners have raised the building pilars.

¶29

Having regard to the above, the I.A. is ordered and the order, dated 20.7O.202 1 is modifie d and the operative portion of the order shall be substituted with the following order:-

¶30

"Therefore, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property. The Trial Court i.e., the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 4299 of 2010 pending on its fi1e, strictly based on the evidence adduced by the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is pertinent to make a note of the submission made by both the parties that they will not seek unnecessary

¶31

3

¶32

adjournments^{before the Courtbelowlt is made ciear that in case} the^{petitionersmakeany constructions, theysha11 be doing so at} their^{own peril and they sha11 not seek any equities in case the Trial} court^{givesa finding that the subject property is Governmentland.} The Trial^{Court shall decide the suit uninfluencedby any of the} observations^{madeby this Court' Pendingthe suit' the petitioners} sha1l^{not alienate the subjectproperty '}

¶33

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending'if any' sha1l stand closed'}

¶34

\

¶35

There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶36

SD/.K.ONESI M ASSISTA^{NT REGISTRAR} //TRUE^COPY// FFICER SECTION

¶37

secretarrat To I rhe V Junior c-ivl ,y99: *'lv":J: ,t"rff:11i1113X1r",""n,.a, , The Principal^Secretary' Buildinss,^HLdgl'?19 .-',"aerabad, T.s.

¶38

? The District^Collector'Hl

¶39

lUrit:ttffri'ft}it*:Le'1"'"?**'rreansanaroUrr

¶40

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶41

B. One^{SPare CoPY} P\Y 0.{

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112021

ORDER

IA.No. 2 ot 2021 ln

-1
3IA i(i
'i
( ^.e <br>q ;l
5() s 1 DEct$zI C:I
I
+ i) r q;'!'i r

¶47

WP.No.14876 of 2021

¶48

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶49

<br>5

Sarella William Peter v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarella William Peter v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Jangili Upender Rao and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Jangili Upender Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Srinivas Reddy Vs The Mandal Surveyor

Bandla Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Piramgoju Sateesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana