Kamlesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kamlesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Protective direction to respondent No. 4 (MRO) not to interfere with the construction pursuant to the 04.05.2024 Manikonda Municipality approval unless due procedure laid down under law is followed; petitioner bound to strict compliance with that approval, failing which the Municipality is at liberty to act in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 4 (Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandipet Mandal) can interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and construction of Plot No. 18, Sy. No. 140, Neknampur Village, without following due process of law, warranting a writ of mandamus. +1 more

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent No. 4 not to interfere with the construction undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to the letter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024 issued by Manikonda Municipality without following due procedure laid down under law.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner directed to proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the letter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024, failing which liberty is granted to the Municipality to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶38
If the subject property is covered under ULC, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 can take action against the petitioner in accordance with law; the question of ULC coverage was otherwise left open (the petitioner relies on the 28.07.2014 ULC memo indicating non-coverage).obiter¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 20586 of 2025 — High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), K. Lakshman J, oral order dated 17-07-2025: Kamlesh Kumar, claiming absolute ownership of Plot No. 18 (311 sq. yds / 259.9 sq. mtrs), Sy. No. 140, Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed doc. No. 2986 of 2008 dated 30.07.2008 and armed with a letter of approval for commencement of work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024 from Manikonda Municipality (G+1 construction, commenced within six months, no claimed deviation), sought mandamus (Art. 226; invoking Arts. 14, 19, 21) against interference by the MRO, Gandipet Mandal (Resp. No. 4) with his construction/possession without due process. AGP for Assignment stated Resp. Nos. 2–4 would follow statutory procedure, noting the property was declared surplus with possession taken in C.C. No.Hl/5603/76; petitioner relied on a 28.07.2014 ULC memo indicating the property is not covered under ULC. Disposition: writ petition disposed of — Resp. No. 4 directed not to interfere with the approved construction without following due procedure; petitioner to build strictly per the 04.05.2024 approval, failing which the Municipality may act per law; if the property is ULC-covered, Resp. Nos. 2–4 may act in accordance with law; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions (incl. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 u/s 151 CPC) closed.

[³¹⁶⁸ I

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.LAKSHM.AN}

WRIT PETITION NO: 20586^{OF 2025}

Between:

Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Niranjan^{Lal, Aged about 60 years,Occ Business,.R/o} ft.tto. tO-S-Olei,^pL.tlo. 4zB,^{First Floor,EastN/aredpally, Secunderabad-} 500026

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Revenue} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

z The District Collector, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

J The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Rajendranagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict}

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer,^{Gandipet Mandal, NeknampurVillage,Ranga} Reddy District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue order, writ or direction^{more in the nature of writ of mandamus} by declaring action of the^{RespondentNo. 4 in interfere in peacefulpossession} of the petitioner^{propertyi.e. Plot bearingno.18 land admeasuring259-9 Sq'} mtrs in Sy. No. 140,^{situated at NeknampurVillage,RajendranagarMandal,} Rangareddy District.,^{without following due processof law is nothingbut} arhitrally, illegal null and^{voidand violationof principleof natural justice and also} violation of Article 14,^{19 and 21 of the constitution of the lndia. Consequently} direct the respondent no.4^not to^{interferein peaceful possessionof the} petitioner proPerty.

f

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 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 respondent nos. 4 not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioner property i.e. Plot bearing no.-18land admeasuring 259-9 Sq. mtrs in Sy. No.^.140, situated at Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar lvlandal, Rangareddy Drstrict., and pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.MANGULAL

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

The Court made the following: ORDER

'a)

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE^{K. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETITION No.20586^{OF 2025 -}

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. R. Mangulal,^{leamed counsel for the petitioner} and leamed Assistant^{Govemment Pleader for Assignmcnt} appearing on behalf of^{the respondents.}

The petitioner herein^{is claiming that he is the absolute} owner and^{possessor of Plot No.l 8, admeasuring3 I 1 square yards} or 259.9 square meters^{in Survey No.l40, situatedat Neknampur} Village, Rajendranagar Mandat,^{Rangareddy District, on the} strength of a registered^{sale deed bearing document No 2986 of} 2008, dated 30.07.2008. He^{has alsoobtained letter of approvallor} commencement of^{work/instant approval dated 04.05.2024lrom} the Manikonda Municipality^{for constructionof Ground+ I Upper} Floor. It is^also the^{specific contentionof the petitionerthat he has} commence<l the construction^{within six (06) months liom the date} of approval for commencement^{of work and he is goingto} complete the same within^{three(03) years. In proof of} commencement of worlg he^{has filed photographs.He is} proceeding with the construction^{strictlyin accordancewith the} letter of approval for commencement^{of work/instantapproval} dated 04.05.2024. Tltere^{is no deviation.Even then, respondent}

2

KL, J W.P.sro.20586 ofz0li

No.4 is interfering with the construction without following due proccdurc laid down under law. Challenging the said action of re sponderrt No.4, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

i. Whereas, learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.2 to^,{ rvill fbllow' the procedure laid down under law befbre taking action against the petitioner herein. The subject propcrty is dcclarcd undcr surplus and possession was taken over in C.C. No.Hl /5603/76.

I-camed counsel for thc petitioner referring to the memo dated 28.07.2014. would oontend that the subject property is not covere d under ULC.

As stated above, to prove that the petitioner herein is the o$,ner o['thc sub.ieot property, he has filed copies ofregistered sale decd, iink document and the aforesaid memo dated 28.07.2014 of the Spccial Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, I{yderabad and lcltcr of approval for commencement of work/instant approval datcd 04.05.2024 of Manikonda Municipality. It is the specific case that he is procceding with construction strictly in accordance rvith the building permit order. There is no deviation. In proof of t

3

KI-, J W P No.20iE6 of2025

w

the same, he has filed photographs.^{The said letterof approvalfor} commencement of work/instant^{approval dated 04.05.2024is} intact. Therefore, if the subject^{propertyis covcredunderULC,} respondent Nos.2 to 4 can^{take actionagainst the petitioner in} accordance with law.

In the light of the above^{discussion' this writ pctitionis} disposed of directing respondent^{No.4 not to interfere with the} construction undertaken by thc^{petitionerpursuantto the lctter of} approval for commencement of^{work/instant approvaldated} 04.05.2024 issued by Manikonda^{Municipality without following} due procedure laid down under law.^{Howcver,the petitioner shall} proceed with the construction strictly in^{accordancewith letter of} approval for commencement of^{worl</instant approvaldated} 04.05.2024, failing which, liberry^{is grantedto the Municipalityto} take action against the^{petitioner herein in accordancewithlaw. ln} the circumstances of the case, there shall^{be no orderas to costs'}

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

in the writ petition shall stand^closed.

SD/. L.LAKSHMI^BABU DEPUTY REG TRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FICER

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State} of Telangana.

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,Rajendranagar,RangaReddyDistrict'

The Mandal^{RevenueOfficer, Gandipet Mandal, NeknampurVillage' Ranga} Reddy District.

-:::' ....rt ..t: -=.r&t;:'--{rrat.-;:.?ryt-:11-.Yii,j1*& -::-"r

*'i.'.!:a-6;.--*l 'Ji/

One CC to SRI R.MANGULAL, Advocate [OPUC]^. 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at ,/ Hyderabad [OUT] !\\ 7. Two CD Copies BSR o- TKS

HIGH COURT

I

f {

DATED:1710712025

ORDER

WP.No.20586 of 2025

o tl fA
(
+
v.<br>I I SEP 206 -.1
,.
- '':iir,-:r r.l

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

.(-