Allowed

Manga Mallamma, Karimnagar Dist. and 4 Others v. the Kakatiya Urban Dev. Auth. Warangal and 2 Others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023WP/15202/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in special original jurisdiction disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal merging of house plots and fixing boundary stones by private surveyors. The Court made an interim order absolute and disposed of the main petition and interlocutory application without costs.

What did the court decide?

The interim order is made absolute; the writ petition and I.A. No.1 of 2011 are disposed of without costs; miscellaneous applications are closed.

Manga Mallamma, Karimnagar Dist. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

!.A.NO.1 0F 20',t1^(WPMP NO.18248 0F2011)

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 15202 OF 2011

¶10

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 18248 OF 2011

¶11

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to merge the house plots of the petitioners situated in Sy. No. 241 and 242 within Grampanchayat Board, Enumamula Village, Mandal Hanamkonda, District Warangal, in to the Deshaipet Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, pending disposal fo the Writ Petition

¶12

wP NO.15202 0F 20'.t',1

¶13

Between

¶14

lVianga Mallamma, W/o Rajaiah House Wife, 13-1-370, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶15

Kankara Beeraiah, S/o Gattaiah Singareni Employee H.No. 36-137, A Zone, tvlallikarjunanagar, Ramakrishnapur (V) Mandamarri (M)

¶16

Dayyala Jyothi, W/o Rajender House wife 11-22-56, Kashibugga, Warangal 4. Dayyala Kamala, W/o Sammaiah House wife H.No. 22-56111, A Zone, Mallikarlunanagar, Ramakrishnapur (V), Mandamarri (M), Adilabad Disrtrict-

¶17

5 D a^yy at a Rai e nd e r, S/o od e^I u B u s i ne ss 1 1^- 22^- 56, ^$E+?iBn_?^{_g,Br€+ly,Xn,} ^,

¶18

AND

¶19

The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal at Hanamkonda rep by its Vice-Chairman.

¶20

The Gram Panchayath,, Enumamula Village Hanaamkonda^[Vlandal, Warangal District rep by its Panchayat Secretary,

¶21

The Superintending Engineer,, lrrigation Department, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶22

...RESP.NDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of

¶24

t I! I

¶25

Writ of Mandamus declaring hte action of the respondents in merging the petitioners house sites in Sy. No. 241 and 242 wilhin Grampanchayat Board, Enumamula Village, Mandal Hanamkonda, District Warangal, in to the Deshaipet Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, as per the Private Surveyors Report and fixing hte boundary stones as illegal, arbitrary, contray to law, null and void

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. VENKATA RAMA RAO

¶27

Counsel for Respondent No's No 1 &2: --

¶28

counsel for Respondent No. 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

l i I :l

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶32

I.A. No.l of 20I I^(OLD - W.P.M.P. No.t8248 oF 2011) IN/AND WRIT PETITION No.15202 OF'2011

¶33

COMMON ORDER: (oRAL)

¶34

l. l. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare action of rhe respondents in merging the petitioners' house sites in Survey Nos.24l and 242 within Grampanchayat Board, Enumamula Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District into Deshaipet Village. llanamkonda Mandal. Warangal District as per the Private Survevols lleport and tixing boundary slones as illegal, arbitrary and conrrarl ro lau

¶35

1.2. I.A. No. I of 201I (Old - W.P.M.P. No.18248 of 20 I I ol l0l I ) is lrled seeking a direction to the respondents not to mergc housc plots ol' the Jretitioncrs' situated in Survey Nos.241 and^,42 u ithin (inrrnparrchar ut IJoard. Enumamula village, Flanamkonda lllaudal \'alangal I)istrict. irrto [)eslraipet Village, Hanamkonda Nlarrclal. Warangll [)istrict pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶36

¶37

2.1. It is clairned that petitioner No.l purchased the land / plot admeasuring 376.24 square yards ln Survey No.242 within Grampanchayat Board, Enumarnula Vitlage, Hanamkonda Mandal Warangal District, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.5620 of 2008 dated 06.10.2010;

¶38

2.2. Petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring 444 square yards in Survel' No.lJl u ithin^{(irarnpanchayat} Board, Enumamula Village, Flanamakonda Man<lal Warangal District, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.56 I 9 of 2008 dated 06. 10.2008;

¶39

2.3. Petitioner No.3 pulchased the lands / plots admeasuring 460 square yards and 99 1.20 scluarc vards in Survey Nos.241 and 242 within Grampanchal at Iloarcl. l.nutramula Village, Hanamkonda Mandal Warangal [)rstrict. urrrlcr tlrc rcgistered sale deed bearing document Nos. I llti ol l0 l0 arrd I I l8 of 20 l0 dated I |.02.2010 respectively;

¶40

2.4. Petitioncr No..l purchascd thc^larrd /^plot admeasuring 241 square yards in Sr.rrr cv No.lJ I ii'ithin^{Crampanchayat} Board, Elrumamula ,'illa(,c. llanepll()r1clJ^{,larrdal Warangal District.} under

! F il

li I

the registered sale^{deed bearing documentNo.56l7 of 2008 dated} 06.10.2008;and

¶45

2.5. Petitioner No.5^purchased the^{land / plot admeasuring} 647.64 square^{yards in Survey Nos.24 | and 242 within Grampanchayat} Board, Enumamuta^{Vitlage,Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District,} under the registered^{sale deedbearing documentNo.l127 of 2010} dated 11.02.10t0.

¶46

2.6. It is submitted that the Commissioner,^{WarangalMunicipal} Corporation. Warangal^{addressed a letter to the District Registrar.} Warangal vide Proceedings in^{ROC No.626ll3/G3/2010 dated} 19.05.20 l0 enclosing tist ol^{tankswith survey numbers and plan} requesting to insist^{'No ObjectionCertificate'} QrIOC)^{from the} Waranqal Nlr-rnicipul⁽ orporation^{whoapproachesthe registrar ofliccs} for transaction of the^{lartds rrentioned in the list' It is stated that in thc} said list, suner^{nuttrbcrs ol'the petitioners'Iands are not included'} Thus, it is cr'1 stal clcal^{that lands ol the petitionersdo not l'orm part ol} the tank / chcruvu as^{certified by the Commissioner,Warangal} Municipat Corporation.^{tt is further stated that as per the Proceedings} in Rc.No.(iPE/1009^{clatcd I4.11.2009of the office of GramPanchal'at.}

¶47

¶48

Enamamula, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District, the subject lands are situated in Enumarnula village.

¶49

2.:. It is submitted that respondent Nos. I and 2 have appointed private surveyors to survey Deshai Tank known as Chinna Waddepally Tank / Cheruvu which is situated in Deshaipet Village instead of Government Surveyors. The petitioners' village Enumamula is adjacent to Deshaipet Village. Plivate Surveyors who are not acquainted with the boundaries of thc Dcshaipet and E,numatnula villages have prepared a plan encloaching into the petitioners' house sites (subject lands) for fixing boundar]-' slones. Private Surveyors have no power to merge the land in Survc1, Nos.24 I and 242 situated at Enumamula village Panchayat Floard. Enunramula Viltage Panchayat Board. Hanamkonda Mandal. \Varanqal District into Deshaipet Vitlage.

¶50

2.8. It is alleged that thc rL'spondr'nts arc trying to fix boundary stones as per the sur.,,ey plarr sLrbruittccl hr thc plivate surveyors and may fix boundary stones at an) tinrc. It is contended that action of the respondents' authorities in rnerging tirc lands in Survey Nos.241 and 242 of Enumamu la Villaee l)anchal at into Deshaipet Gram Panchayat

¶51

)

¶52

or Deshaipet^{Tank is withouttollowing due processofl law and liable}

¶53

to be declared as arbitrary^{and unconstitutional.}

¶54

Despite service of^{notice,no counter is filed by the} respondents.

¶55

On 26.08.201 l, this Court^{while admitting the writ petition,} passed the following intcritn^{order vide t.A'No. I of201I} (Old - W.P.M.P. No.l824tt of'20 t^I )

¶56

"The respondcnts are directed^{not to erect cement} blocks in the petitioncrs'^{land in Sy.Nos.24l & 242 of} Enumamula villagc. Hanamkonda^{Mandal, Warangal} District to demarcatc the new^{FTL ofChinna} Wadc'lepally^('hcrur u.ⁱⁱ ithotrt^{tbllowingdue processof} Iaw."

¶57

In the t'acts ancl circurlrsLanccs^{of the case, the interim order} dated 26.08.20 1Iⁱⁿ t.:\ \o^{l ol l0 lI- (Old - W.P.M.P. No.18248 of} 201l) is made^absolr.rte

¶58

Accordingll', thc^{rrrit petition and I.A. No.1 of 20ll} (Old - W.P.M.[). No. I li]1,\ ol l0I^I )^{arc- disposed ol-. No order as 1o} costs

¶59

¶60

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{applications. if any, pending}

¶61

in the writ petition stand^closed.

¶62

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA //rRUE coPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶63

¶64

SECTION OFFICER

¶65

To, 1 The Vice chairman, The Kakatiya^{Urban Development Authority, Warangal at} Hanamkonda.

¶66

2 The Panchayat Secreary, Gram^{Panchayath', Enumamula Village} Hanaamkonda Mandal,^{Warangal District.}

¶67

3 The Superintending Engineer,,-irrigation^{Deparlment, Hanamkonda, Warangal} District.

¶68

One CC to Sri M Venkata^{Rama Rao Advocate} IOPUCI

¶69

Two CCs to GP For lnigation^{& Comm Area Development,HighCourt for the} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶70

Two CD Copies

MBC GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1311212023

1 t\g STAre'
(
,c
oo 2 9 JAII 202[ (,)
t ar---n,'a.r<br>

¶75

ORDER

¶76

!.A.NO.1 OF 2011 (WPMP NO.18248 OF2011) IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 1 5202 OF 2011

¶77

ORDERING THE I.A.NO.1 OF 2011

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIOft

¶79

q WITHOUT COSTS
t, <br>t LD

Manga Mallamma, Karimnagar Dist. and 4 Others v. the Kakatiya Urban Dev. Auth. Warangal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manga Mallamma, Karimnagar Dist. and 4 Others v. the Kakatiya Urban Dev. Auth. Warangal and 2 Others

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

Deshmukh Ramulu Vs Sri C. Narayana Reddy, I.A.S

G.Neelakantam Vs The State of Telangana

Chittaympally Anja Goud Vs The State of Tenlangana and 5 others

Mohd. Raheem Vs The Tahsildar

Guruswamy Rajaram, Vs M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited

Smt.Sandhya, Vs State of Telangana