The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal of compound fencing by revenue officers. The court held that fencing constitutes construction requiring valid building permission, which the petitioner did not possess, rendering the claim of interference untenable.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
wRtT PETTTION NO. 16196 0F 2021
Betwee n :
Vandana Narender, S/o. V. Dharmaiah, Aged about55 years, Occu. Business, F/o. House No. 3-52218, Adityangar, New Hafeezpet,Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District.
...PET|T|ONER
AND
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ or orderor direction, more particularly, one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS, todeclare the action of the respondentNo.3and 4 orally directing thepetitioner to causedismantle of the compound fencing for the residential houseplot admeasuringto an extent of 400 sq.Yds., bearing plot No. 3211 in Sy, No.283 situated atNizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal,Medchel- Malkajgiri District(old RangaReddy District)without issuingany notice, and without conducting enquiry and withoutfollowing due process of law as illegal, arbitraryand in violation of Art.1 4 and 300 Aof the Constitutionof lndia in the interest of justice and fairplay.
lA NO: 1 2021
Petition under Section 151CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4not tointerferein to the peaceful possessionand enjoyment of thepetitioner over the residential house plot admeasuring to an extent of 400 Sq.Yds., bearingplot No.3211 in sy.No.2B3 situated at NizampetVillage, Quthbullapur Mandal,l\4edche l-Ma lkajgiriDistrict(old Ranga ReddyDistrict) pending disposal of the above writpetitionin the interestof justiceand fair play'
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI V' BALRAM Counsel forthe RespondentNos. 1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the ResPondentNo.5: " The Court made the following:ORDER
2
I
HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE P.NAVEEN R.A.O
1IIRIT PETITION No.16196 of 2O2l
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following re.ief:
"...to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more parl icularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the :.ction of the respondent No.3 and 4 orally directing the petitioner 1o cause dismantle of the compound fencing for the residential ho -lse plot admeasuring to an extent of 400 Sq. Yds bearing plot No.32/ I in Sy.No.283 situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchel Malkajgiri District (Old Ranga Reddy District) without issuing any notice and without conducting enquiry and without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary and in vioiation of Art. 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia in the in:erest of justice and fair play and pass...
2 Heard Sri V.Balram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
SD/.K.ONESIM i/TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT lEGISTRAR \ SECTIONOFFICER
IOPUCI To'1. One CC to Sri V. Balram, Advocate 2. Two CCs toGP for Revenue, Hign Court forthe State of Telangana Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. 4. One SpareCoPY. MP
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210812021
ORDER
WP.No.16196 ot 2021
<br>e S TA I
1
ao 26 AUB2021 o
DE:
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim violation of constitutional rights regarding removal of fencing when no building permission is valid for the structure.
Whether the revenue authorities acted illegally in obstructing the erection of fencing on the property.
Whether the relief sought in the writ petition should be granted given the absence of valid building permission.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vandana Narender
1 The State of Telangana
2 The District Collector, Rangareddy
3 A Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthubullapur
4 Revenue Inspector, Quthubullapur Mandal
5 Akula Satish
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
