Disposed

Madhuri Saritha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/11510/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

House-site patta holders alleged revenue authorities were interfering with their possession of house plots in Peddashapur Thanda without due process. The Government stated no action had been initiated and any claim would follow due process. The Court disposed of the petition directing authorities not to interfere and to follow Supreme Court guidelines before removing structures.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed not to interfere with petitioners' peaceful possession of subject plots; enquiry per Rajendra Kumar Barjatya guidelines required before removal action; no costs.

Madhuri Saritha Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

{^32e6 I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:11510 0F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Madhuri Saritha,^{Wio Eshwaraiatr,Aged 44 years',Occ:HouseWife'R/o} 'ff.T,il: 6-1 gii,'l noirrrhu bolonv Fdoaisnapur Thanda' Shamshabad Mandal Ranga ReddY^district

¶9

2 Chekkala Subhadra,^{W/o Nagaiah,Aged42 years'} .occ^{Housewife'Rl/o} i"",ii;;;;rt;t;nv^{F'"oorir,jpiiihinoi,Sham6habad Mandal RansaReddv} district

¶10

J Smt. Voolaqandla^{Jyothi, W/o Narsimha, Aged 32 years'occ House.wife'RJo} o':i'rySrrllliOiirr*',^{Coron,eeOOJsrrapLirThanha. Shamshabad lr4andal} Ranga^{ReddYdistrict}

¶11

4 Korra Ramesh^{Nayak, S/o Baliya, Aged27 years, Occ House Wife' RJo-H'No'} b'-;it: i;;i;#;6il"y^{FeJaiihad,rrhahda,Shamshabadrrilandal Ranga} Reddy district

¶12

5 Vadithva Gori, W/o^{Chander, Aged 65 years, Occ HouseWife' Rl/o H'No 2-55} t ?iiii rill, i cd^r,j "^{v pitn*i-t r,Z p,ir in r nci", s ha m s h a b a d M a n d a l R a ns a Redd v} district

¶13

r) Bathula Venkatesh, emolovee R/o H.No.^{S/o 6-;;ti5 Babu Rao, Aged about i;ti;".fr,Colony 43 Peddashapur years'Occ' Thanda'Private} SnimshaOad Mandal^{Ranga Reddydistrict}

¶14

1. Kukkala^{lndira, W/o Eshwar, Aged50} ^years,.^{Occ B} usiness, Fi/o 6-15, andal Ranga^ReddY

¶15

' iilid.r; Col6ny Peddashapur T-handa, Shamshabad [/l district

¶16

Smt. Gopana^{Moni Laxmi Devi, W/o G Venkataiah'-ag.e.dp0 year.s.' Occ'} " ilortJ tiii" - R/o Plot No. 4 lndiramma Colony Peddashapur Thanda' Shamshabad^{Mandal Ranga Reddydistrict}

¶17

Gopanamoni^{Komaramma'W/oG.Mallesh,Ageia0 years'OccHouse wife'} " Ry;Pi;] n.. s tnair"rmrtoronvFeooasrripu"r Thand'a' Shamshabad Mandal Ranga ReddY district

¶18

l0.Smt.AnupaArunamma,W/oA.Venkatesh,Aged;bout40years'Occ'House'- ;ii;: liaiiarmi Colony Pecldashapur Thanda, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy district

¶19

.1 l.Vislavath Bujji, w/o Vislavath Redya, Aged about 44 vears. occ. House wife, ' ' tilirc;ilii,ionv peoalliipuiiitihoi' sna.ihaba'd Mandal Ranga Reddv district

¶20

12.Buvani Suiatha,^{W/o B Raju, Aged about42 ys.ats'occ liouse wife'RJo Plot} '' "N;1";b: l';,i'i;;;;; c;il;v ii6Jo,.n"p" rhanda' :lramshabad^rrilandal Ranga ReddY ReddY^clistrict

¶21

"3.,YffiJ1?i.?;il,',"r[3Liii"i',3?'#3i:^?ft Ranga ReddY ReddY^{clistrict5:H:;Jl'R"5l"r'Jl!l',ffi "}

¶22

...PETITIONERS

¶23

AND

¶24

1 The State^of Telanoana. Reo.bv its^{Principal Secretary, Departmentof} Revenue Dr.^B R Am"bedkar Secrdtariat^{Buildings, Hydcrabad}

¶25

The District^{Collector,Ranga Reddydistrict Kongarkalan Ranga Reddy}

¶26

3.TheRevenue)ivisiona|officer'shamshabadrevenuet)ivisionKongarakalan, Ranga ReddY^)istrict.

¶27

The Tahsildar.^{Shamshabad Mandal Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶28

The Peddashapur^{Tanda, Grampanchayal} F"p'bV.^{its Panchayath Secretary} " P;;ir;h;;ur'ianda, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Redriv district

¶29

The Station^{llouseOfficer, ShamshabadP S Near Pedda Shapurvillage} Ranga ReddY^District

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stat<rd in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleasedtoissueaWritorderordirectionmoreparticularlvoneinthenatureof WRIToFMANDA\4US,declaringtheactionoftherescondents2to5in interfering/ dispossession^{of the petitioners from their pe;tr;eful possessionand} enjoyment of the^{Hruse Plotsin Plot Nos 6-19/1'6-14/6tvl,6-26, 2-55' 6-26115'} Plot No' 4' Plot No^{5, Plot No. 70, in Sy.No'220, PedasharprurTanda villageand} Grampanchayath,^{!ihamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy disl.rict withoutfollowing} due process of law^{is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Artic,es 14,21and 3004 of} the constitution cf^{lndia and consequentlydirect the respondents not to} interfere/d isposses^{r; the petitioners from their peaceful possr:ssionand enjoyment} of the above stated^{House Plots pending disposal of the mainwrit petition.}

¶32

IAN O: 1 OF 2025

¶33

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondents^{not to interfere/dispossessthe petitionersfrom their} peacefulpossessionandenjoymentoftheHousePlotsinPlotNos.6.19/1,614l6tv, 6-26, 2'55,^{6-26115,Plot No. 4, Plot No 5, Plot No' 70' in Sy.No'220'} Peddashapur Tanda^{village and Grampanchayath, Shamshabad lrilandal' Ranga} Reddy District^{pendingdisposal of the main Writ Petition'}

¶34

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:M/s. HARSHEET REDDY LAW FIRM} SRI S. SATYAM^{REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL} REPRESENTING^{SRI K. MAHENDAR REDDY}

¶35

Counsel for the^{Respondents No.1to 4: SRt H' SOMAIAH EZRA SASTRI'} AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶36

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.S: SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY'} S.C. FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶37

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.6:AGP FOR HOME}

¶38

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶39

¶40

*d.-

¶41

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR:REDDY

¶42

trrRIT PETITION No.11510 of 2O

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This Writ Petition is fited praying this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in interfering u,ith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their house plots i.e., Plot Nos.,j-19l1, 6-14l6M, 6-26, 6-26/15, Plot Nos.4, 5, 70, situated in Sl.No.220, Peddashapur Thanda Vil1a55:, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangr Reddy District without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 2l tntd 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, pre.y.ed for other appropriate reliefs.

¶45

It is stzrted that the petitioners were assigned house site pattas as per :he policy enunciated by the Governrnent for various extents ranging from 15O to 3O0 square yards end they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaicl house plots by constructing houses after obtaining necessary p,ermission from respondent Nc.5 and have been residing therein. 'lhe grievance of the petitionersr is that the respondent authorities are interfering with their pear;eful possession and enjoyment over the house sites assigned to tht:m, without following due process of law.

¶46

Considered the submissions made by Sri S.siatyam Reddy, learned Senrcr Counsei representing Sri K.Mahendar Reddy,

¶47

¶48

CVBR, J wp I l5l0 2025

¶49

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent 7 to 4; Sri Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.S and the Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.6 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners have constructed the houses in the house sites allotted to them and the said houses are also assessed to property tax and they have paid propert5r taxes to the local authorities and since around three decades, the petilioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been residing therein.

¶51

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that the petitioners have not obtained valid construction permissions from the competent authority and they have encroached some extent of the Government land and therefore, only for the purpose of identification an inspection was conducted and they did not initiate any action. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, if the petitioners have encroached any Government land, they will follow due process of law.

¶52

; g;'5

¶53

¶54

CVBR, J Wp ll5l0 2025

¶55

In vieu' of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate tr: dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent aut horities 1-ro t [o interfere with the peaceful pos,session of the petitioners or r:r the subject property, in any r1i:rnner. If the Govcrnment is having any claim over the prope rty, which is in possession of the petitioners or subject properfr' has not been assigned to the pctitioners and the assignment cr'rtihcates issued in their favorrr arc nol genuine, the respondent authorities are entitled to co nd uc t an enquiry and strictly follorv the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjdtgd

¶56

and another vs. U.P. Aoas Eaam Vikas Parlsho.d and othersl, before initiatirrg any action for removal of the existing structures.

¶57