Disposed

Kotla Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jul 2025WP/20576/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference with construction on plots for which they held municipal permissions, at the behest of private respondents citing an injunction in O.S.No.653/2020. Authorities stated they had closed the complaint as civil in nature. The Court directed official respondents not to interfere in the civil dispute except in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Official respondents directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties regarding the subject land except in accordance with law; no costs.

Kotla Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FI'E

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOO KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETI TION NO:20576 oF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kotla Rama Devi. Wl .[^V.gnlqteshwar Rao, aged about 53 years. Occ Housewife, R/o H No s_168,r, CGiiilj ia 'il"jaiio.z, New Gayathri Naoar Meerpet, J iile ta g uda. Sa roorn aga r, M;g;hed",iy" District_ S00 097.

¶9

Panjugula Balrai Goud S/o p.Sailu, Aged about 67 years, Occ Aqriculture R/o H No 8-7-'aptnr.. ptor Noiii,'vi;-k;#;'";, Cotony, Hasthinapuram South, L B Nasar, Ransa neooy oiitiict_EbA d;6"'"

¶10

P.Anasuya, Wo. p.Batraj .Goud,^{Aged about 54 years,} Occ Housewife. R/o

¶11

HJ:,i J,?ll?l36',orfil"i',^{n; 57i' Ei"tt'ii",il'",-,''so,t',L B Nasar,iansa}

¶12

Panjugula Naveen Kumar,-S/o -p.Balraj Ccoud, Aged about 3g years. Occ pvt Emptovee, R/o H No s_o_zaoi?, Fr"ir.rl,li,6e" East, Road No 9, Nr Sri [SJri Bi:fl id, -Y3,3 3?b*' n ;' u-;'i^r' ; riri, f i] iii"v" th ;; il; ffi ;;"i, ii],i,'

¶13

AND

¶14

.. ...PETITIONERS

¶15

' U:,:,t#i"ili"J3t'ffi^{Repbv its Principalsecretarv,HomeDepartmenr,}

¶16

The State of Telanoana, Rep by its principal Secretary, Municipal Department, Secreiariat, Hta.%b;^{',.^ rvq' es'rt.} \r

¶17

The Commissioner of pr :ltce' Rachakondhlcommissionerate, Malkajgiri,

¶18

Hyderabad

¶19

t I?:"?X&^dibatla^{Police station' Rachakonda commissionerate, Markajgiri,}

¶20

U |[ir:ir.,ssioner, Turkayaml at Municipatity, Turkayamjat, Ranga Reddy

¶21

C. Mahesh, S/o. Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 45 yedrs, Occ Agriculture, R/o Turkyamjat vilage, Hayathnisa; urZ"orrli.nl"crliiit

¶22

7 C. Yadaiah, S/o. Late ,\Iallaiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ Agriculture R/o Turkyamjat viuage. Hayarhn;s;; i\i;;jriR.n' di.ili.,.

i I I I i

i I Ii I i i i I

C. Krishna, S/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 58 years. Crsc Agriculture, R/o Turkyamjat vilage, Hayathn"g';r. [r;dii Rn bi.ir"it

¶27

I C. Ashok, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about _44 years, Crcr: Agriculture, R/o. Turkyamjat vittage, Hayathnagai Mandal, n nl ifrsiiic::-

¶28

.....RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rnc a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a or more in the nature of a writ of [V arrdamus or any other appropriate writ order declaring the action of Respondent l\r,,.3 and4 in interfering in the construction activity on petitioner's ptots vide prot Nos 62, 63,66, 67,65 g6 99 each plot adm.200 sq.yards in survey Nos.51o/A, AA 511/A,AA,E, s12IA,AA, E, and 51 3/E, situated at Mannemutyalakunta, Hamlet of Turkayamjal village, Ragannaguda Grampanchayath, Hayathnagar Revenue tr4;rndal, Ranga Reddy District when the petitioners are initiating construction w()rk on their prots after obtaining permissions from the Respondent No.5/Turka 7:rmjal Municipality in Letter/permit Nos. 474003rrKJL|0163t2025,474027tfKJL!O168t2025,474033t1't< JLto16gt2o25,4740 19/TKJL/0166/202s dt-31 .01 202s, 473gS1nKJLro162tzo25 dt23.01 .202s and 473971rfKJLl0161r2o2s, dt.22.01 .2025 interference of Res;p,ndent Nos.3 and 4 on the construction activity of petitioners prots on the instig;:tion of Respondent Nos 6 to^g is illegar, arbitrary against to the princrpres .f naturar justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to inte:rfere in the petitioner house construction work on their prot Nos.62,63,66,67 6ri and gg each prot adm.200 Sq.Yards in Survey Nos510/A, AA, 5i.t/A,AA,t, 512IA,AA, E, and 5131E, situated at Mannemutyarakunta, Hamret of r-rrkayamjar vi[age, Ragannaguda Grampanchayath, Hayathnagar Revenue Mi:ndal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

!.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶31

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the cir(;urnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rrray be preased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 not to interfere in the petitioners construction activity on their Plot Nos.62, 63, 66, 67, 65 & 99 each ptot adn 200 Sq.yards in

¶32

Survey Nos.510/A, AA, 5.1 1/A,AA,E, S1Z,A,AA, E, and 513/E, situated at Mannemutyalakunta, Hamlet of Turkayamjal village, Ragannaguda Grampanchayath, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass

¶33

Counsel for the petitioners : SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.j, 3 to 4 : Gp FOR HOME

¶35

Counsel for the Resoonde-nt No.2 : Gp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELbPMENT

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 9 : __

¶37

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD ]{IIMAR

¶39

W.P.No.2O576 of 2o25

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petit. orrers, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 5, and with their consent,.the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶42

Having regard to the manner of disposal ol tl.e rvrit petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the r..er,r, that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 is not necessarv for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶43

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that 11e respondent Nos.3 & 4 ate interfering with the consrrrrction activity undertaken by them after obtaining permissions from the municipal authorities uide permissions, r1t.22.O1.2025, dt.23.O1.2025 and 3l.Ol.2O2S, in respect o{ their plots, respectively, purchased under registered sale deec.s. at the behest of respondent Nos.6 to t herein and directing th c petitioners to stop the construction, which action of the re:;irondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶44

¶45

¶46

4 Per contra, learned Government pleader Home appearing on behalf of official respondents would submit that the zth respondent herein had approached the authorities on 07.OT.2025 and lodged a complaint claiming that there is an order of injunction gran ted by the competent Court of jurisdiction 1n OS.No.653/2020 uide order dt.t3.O3.2024; arrd that the petitioners herein have trespassed into their land illegally despite the subsistence of the injunction order and are digging holes and erecting precast walrs therein; and thus sought for initiation of action against the writ petitioners.

¶47

l,earned Government pleader further submits that the respondents-authorities on receiving the a-foresaid complaint from the 7th respondent herein had made a GD entry aitd caused preliminary enquiry; and as the preliminar5z enquiry revealed the dispute to be relating to land being claimed by the petitioners and the complainant/unofficial respondent No.7 herein, being a subject matter of a suit uide O.S.No .653/2020, wherein an injunction order granted by the triar court in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein/plaintiffs having been vacated in CMA.No. I ot 2023 preferred by some of the defendants

\ I

in the suit, the respondents-authorities^{have close,l the aforesaid} complaint as "civil in nature" on^14.07.2024.

¶52

Learned Government Pleader further^{su br:nits that the} respondents-authorities, except causing^{preliminr'Lryenquiry into} the aforesaid complaint lodged by the^{7th respondr:ntherein,are} not interfering in any civil disputes that^{may exi st betweenthe} petitioners ald the unofficial respondents herein^{or directed the} petitioners not to proceed with the construction on^accountof subsistence of injunction, as claimed.

¶53

The aforesaid submission made by the^{learnt:dGovernment} Pleader for Home is taken on record.

¶54

Having regard to the submissions made as^a':rove and^since, in the present writ petition, though the^petitioner s have^alleged the action of the 3'a and 4th respondents in intr:rfering with the construction activity being undertaken by t1're m, since, the respondents-authorities having categorically ass,3rted before this Court of the authorities not interfering in th.e civil disputes existing in respect of the subject property, this Ccu:t is ofthe view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed not to interfere in the civil disputes that may exist between the pe:titioners and the

¶55

¶56

unofficial respondents herein or in relation to the subject land, except in accordance with law.

¶57

9 . Further, it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioners with regard to the construction being underterken by them pursuant to the permissions obtained from the municipal authorities during the subsistence of injunction order granted in OS.No.6 53/2020, and in the event any alleged violation of such injunction order, the unofficial respondents are at liberty to take further action in accordalce with the provisions of CpC.

¶58

Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶59

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶60

stand closed

¶61

SD/-AH D ABDULLAH KHAN A ANT REGISTRAR

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

¶64

1 SECTION OFFICER

¶65

I The Principal Secretarv. H ome Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana

¶66

at Hyderabad.

¶67

2 Ilp-llin"1pr!^{Secretary,,Municipat Department, Secretariat,} State of I etangana at Hyderabad.

¶68

3 The Commissioher of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶69

1. The SHO, Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶70

SA BS

¶71

The Commissioner. Turkavamj al lVlunicipality, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶72

f) Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶73

7 8. 9nu Two CD^g9 Copies^{to SRtpAonLR pRAVtNKUMAR,} Advocate [opuc]

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:17107t202s

ORDER

.s
i +"8
,"S

WP.No.20576 of 2O2S

DISPOSTNG OF THE W.P

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶82

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶83

q\ 2r
<br>

Kotla Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotla Rama Devi 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

Syed Abdul Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

C. Sham Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sunitha Devi Jena Vs The State of Telangana

Siddam Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Narlengula Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana