Writ petition filed to declare road construction on private land illegal and seek interim stay. Court found no evidence of title or private corpus road, dismissing plea to halt public infrastructure project.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to 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.
[3230 I
HIGH COURT FOR'I-HE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Spccial Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTI{ DAYOF APRIL TWO TIIOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESEN'I
TI{E I{ON'BLE SNIT JUSTICE LAI,I'I'IIAKANNEGANTI WRIT PETI'IION NO: 9602 OF2022
llctrvccn:
Lokesh, S/o. Bhupathi OmPrakashSlo. Courishankar,Occ R.N.T Road, Warangal.
Business, R./o. H.No 8-11-33,
...PETITIONER
AND
...RES,,NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of [ndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavittiled thcrcrvittr.the High court may be pleased to issued an order or writ ordircction onc tnorc particularly in tho nature of writ of mandamus declaring the actionol' thc llcspotttlertts tn itrterl'cringwith ourpeaceful possession over the private internal littrdcasternsidc to thc landadmeasuring 2000 Sq.Yds in Sy.No. 1795 &1796 (lil'lA & l-ll'l B Neu)situatedat Fort Warangal, Hunter Road, warangalas illegal.arbirrirrvanrlviolatiYeof Article 14, 2l and 300A of the Constitution and also contrary tothc 'tclanganaMunicipalitiesAct,2019and consequently direct the Respontlentsa. r)ot to tlispossess the potitioners overthe private internal land towards eastern sidct() the land adtneasurirrg2000 Sq.Yds in Sy.No. 1795 & l':.96 (1314 A & 1314 BN$v) situatctl at Fort Warangal,HunterRoad, Warangal without following the dueproccdure cstablishcdby larv antl b. to pay compellsationto us for digging the land illegallY:
lA NO:3 O 2022
Petition under Section I5tCP('praying that in thtr circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support ofthc petition.thc Iligh Court Inay be pleasedto extendthe order dated 25.022.2022:
lA NO: 4 OF 2022
Petition under Scction l5lcP(' praying that in the circulrlstances stated in the affidavit f-rted in support ol'thepelititrrt. rltc Iligh Court rlray bc pleascdto cxtendthe order dated 25.02.2022'.
lA NO: I Olt 2(t22
Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in thc circumstances stated in the affidavit filcd in support of the petition, the High Court may be plcased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with our peaceful possession over the private internal land towards eastcm side to the land admeasuring 2000 Sq.Yds in Sy.No. I 795 & I 796 ( I 3 l4 A & l3 l4 B Ncw) situated at Fort Warangal, Hunter Road, Warangal by digging on the land:
I.A. No.2 of 2022
Betrveen:
The Creater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its commissioner. Warangal District.
... Petitioner / Respondent No.2 And
Pc t itionc r/ llcs pondcn t
Res pon de n ts/llcs pondcnts
Pctition under Section l5l CPC praying that in thc circunlstances statcd in tlrc alfiduvit liletl in support of the petition, the High Court may be plcascd t() ,acatc thc inrerirn ortlcrs granterl in lA.No. I of 2022 in W.P.No. 9602 ol20ll. datcd l5/02/2012:
l.\ \O: 5()1. ::012
Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in thc circur)rstances stalcd in thc allldavit filctl in support of the petition, the High Court may hc plcasctl t() extend thc <rrtler datctl: 25.O2.2022 until flrther orders;
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. I{ KRISIIN,<sup>( ll \11'\N'.\
Counsel for the Rcspondcnt No.l : GP FOR ]\ICPI- Al)\l\ t. lttt.\ l)I.]' (lounscl for thc Respondent No.2 & 3 :l\Is. l' l,i\KSI INI I
'l he C'ourt ntatle thc ltrllorving:
/
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI qIRIT PETITIoN No. 96o2 OF 2022
ORDER
This Writ Petition is {iled seekingthe followingrelief:
" to issue an order or writ or directionone moreparticularly in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaringthe action of the respondents in interfering withourpeaceful possessionover theprivate internal land eastern side to theland admeasuring2000 sq. yds. in Sy.No. 1795 & 1796(1314 A &1314 B Nelvl situated at Fort Warangal, Hunter Road, Warangalas illegal,arbitraryand violaive of Article 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitutionand also contrary to the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 andconsequently, direct the respondents:
a) not to dispossess thepetitionersover the private internal land towards eastern side to the tand admeasuring2O00sq yds. in Sy.No. 1795 & 1796 (13L4 A & 1314 B New) situated atFort Warangal,Hunter Road, Warangal without following thedue procedure established by law and
b) to pay compensation to usfor digging the land rllegally
2
properties by executing a registered partition deed bearing document No. 937 of 2010, dated 22.O2.2O I O into three parts ie. 3O0, 850 and 850 square yards respectively. After demise of petitioner's father, their family share i.e. 850 square yards was further divided among petitioner's mother i.e. 510 square yards, petitioner (170 square yards) and petitioner's brother (170 square yards) through paitition deed dated LO.O1.2O22. It is submitted that petitioner's mother again transferred her share i.e. 5lO square yards to petitioner and his brother through registered gift deed dated O3.04.2021 . In all those documenrs, the road [owards Eastern side is left for private purposes. The reason behind in showing the internal road / pathway towards Eastern sidc is because all the properties would face main road and rvould fctch higher value in future. karned counsel submlts t.hat petitioner has been in continuous possession ol the properry" from a very long time. On 21.02.2022, the 4'h
respondent at the behest of Respondents 2 and 3 started digging internal road path from 14.O2.2022 onwards. On enquiry, the 4rt, respondcnt informed that he issued work order from the office of Respondents 2 artd 3. Then the pctitioner immediatelv approached the respondents and requested them to stop digging of the road and also gave a representation to the
3
2"d respondent and it was not consideredby the respondents. Learned counsel submits thatthe property admeasuring2OO0 square yards is aprivate property along with 20 feet private internal road and withoutinitiating proceedings underthe Land Acquisition Act, therespondentscannot interferewith the possession. This action of the respondentsis high-handedand against the principlesof natural justice.
4
t ,
right whatsoever with regard to 30, intemal passage referred to in the said documents. It is submitted that the respondents have been witnessing serious inundation of local colonies adjoining Bhadrakati Tank. To mitigate the hardship of the citizens and inhabitants of the area, the respondents have invited tenders on O9.08.2O2 I for construction of storm water drain from 12 vents to Vinayaka Filling Station at pothana Road. Tenders were opened and contract was awarded and contractor has been executing the work. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order. karned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner without any manner of right and title has stalled the work which is for a larger public purpose. It is submitted that petitioner is referring to a gift dcccl :rncl p:\rtition deed and there is no source of title to the said property and there is no such document. It is submitted that by mentioning something in the documents that are executed bctween the family members, he cannot claim that it is zr privatc road and the respondents are interfering with the said private road. It is submitted that adjacent to the existing 15 fect u,ide nala drain, there is an existing B0 feet wide road from Hurrtcr Road. In rhc said 80 feet wide road, petitioner is sho'*,ing that t here is only 30 feet wide internal passage without
5
reference to 80 feet road which is in existence- In fact, towards the Western side of 8O feet road, there are structures of other citizens. Sri B. Venugopal Rao executed a registered sa-le deed dated 31.07.2008 to Sri Vittala Babu Rao and nine others. The said sale deed details the title of the land, the orders of the Courts including this Court. As per the sale deed dated 31.07.2008, the property is situated in house bearing No. 12-8184 (old 12 /8301 forming part of Survey No. 1312(old No.1794) of Fort Warangal situated at Hunter Road, Warangal. Theplan annexed to the said document shows that there is existing 8O feet wide road from Hunter Road towards Bhadraka-li Talk. The plan of the petitioner that adjacent to drain only 3O feet wide passage is in existence is incorrect. Learned Senior Counsel submits that basing on the said document of petitioner, he cannot come before the Court and say tlat 8O'road is not existing and the road is a private road. It is also submittedthat by virtue of the interim orders gra-nted by the Court, the entire developmental activities are stalled, as such, the interim orders may be vacated. 5. The petitioner has come up vrith a reply and also he filed additional documents. In the reply, it is stated thatthe Vice-Chairman, KUDA has paid compensation to theland
6
acquired for 15 feet sullage drainage and constructed the sameThe left over 3O feet road is private intemal road. He submits that there is no 8O feet road as alleged by the respondents and the master plan prepared with KUDA is also placed before the Court which clearly shows that there is no gO feet road in existence. Even assuming that there is 3O feet road left over for master plan, the respondents cannot take the land without acquiring the same. It is submitted that certain sa-le deeds were filed by the 2"d respondent showing that there is gO feet road. It is submitted that the respondents are denying tlle existence of the property by relying on some private d.ocuments without submitting the actual master plart before the Court. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has issued proceedings dated 24.O1 .2O13 granting patra to the property. Further, photos that are submitted by the 2.d respondent belongs to the laid situated 2 K.Ms. au,ay from the subject property and there is no water clogging ar any point of time within the vicinit5r of the subject property. He submits that petitioner is in possession of the property. 6. The whole basis for the petitioner to contend that the respondents are laying the road in his land is basing on the gift deed :ind partition deed between the family members and
7
that cannot be the basis to come to a conclusion that there is no existing 8O feet road. Further, it is thecase of thepetitioner that there is no serious inundation of local colonies adjoining Bhadrakali tank, as such, there is no suchrequirement.Even on that a1so, thepetitioner cannotsay whether thereis any requirement to construct or not.Further,none ofthe documents that was filed before this Courtis the basisfor this Court to arrive at a conclusionthat 30 feet road is petitioner's private road. Apart from those documents,petitioner has not fited arry other document to show that it is aprivate road. Further, the respondents havefiled thesaledeeds of the neighbours to show that there is8O feet road and in all those documents, thcre is a mention about80 feet road- Whenthe petitioner came before this Court allegingthat inhis private property, the respondents in a high-handed manneraremaking construction, relevant material shouldbe placed before this Court to convince in that direction. Thepetitionerhasnot filed any convincing material to show thatthe saidroad is a private road of the petitioner. As such, this Courtlinds no reason to pass any orders in favour of thepetitioner. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly,dismissed. No order as to costs.
8
8 The miscellaleous Applications if any shall stand
closed.
SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
/iTRTIE COPYII
)y-
SECTION OFFICER
IIIGII COt]I{T
LKJ
DATED:25/0.{/2022
B E
o
, $.1 r{s it
t t
\oo.x.
<br>
OITDER
WP.No.9602 of 2(122
WRIT PE'tII'ION IS DIS],IISS[,D WITHOU'T(]OS'TS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has the right to claim possession over 30 feet internal road without title.
Whether the respondents can continue storm water drain construction despite petitioner's allegations of land violation.
Lokesh
State of Telangana
Commissioner, Warangal Municipality
City Planning Officer, Warangal Municipality
Mamidi Ravi
Lalitha Kanneganti
T. Jayasree
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
