Disposed¶115

Gurram Bixam, S/o. Narayana,Aged about 48 years, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025WP/26805/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miryalaguda Municipality; building permission suspension/cancellation; Section 344(6) A.P. Municipalities Act 1965; final show cause notice 30.06.2015; unauthorised construction and encroachment dispute; Sy.No.797 FCI Area Sagar Road Miryalaguda; Writ of Mandamus; locus standi; identity of property; licensed surveyor measurement report; W.P.No.18094/2015; W.A.No.1006/2015 Division Bench; C.C.No.2299/2016 contempt; O.S.No.195/2009 injunction decree; O.S.No.23/2015 dismissal; writ petition closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

From the chronology of events, the petitioner failed to prove his case both in O.S.No.23 of 2015 (filed by him) and in O.S.No.195 of 2009 (filed by respondent No.3); judgments were passed against him in both suits and the decrees are binding on the petitioner. ¶103

Gurram Bixam, S/o. Narayana,Aged about 48 years… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶115

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2's failure to take steps pursuant to the final show cause notice dated 30.06.2015 — to stop construction of, and demolish, the commercial building (stilt + G + 2, 315 sq. yards, Sy.No.797, FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda) raised by respondent No.3 — is illegal and arbitrary, warranting a Writ of Mandamus. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The show cause notice dated 30.06.2015, pursuant-inaction to which is complained of in this writ petition, flowed from the proceedings dated 08.06.2015 which were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.18094 of 2015 (order dated 06.10.2015 as per counsel's account; recap prints 06.10.2025), confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1006 of 2015.

¶98

Ratio / Principle

¶103

Key takeaways

The injunction order dated 14.07.2015 obtained in the petitioner's favour in O.S.No.23 of 2015 stands vacated in view of the trial court's dismissal of that suit (judgment dated 21-01-2022); conversely, the decree in O.S.No.195 of 2009 grants respondent No.3 injunction over the suit schedule property, binding on the petitioner.ratio¶103
Respondent-Municipality issued proceedings dated 30.04.2016 recording that the licensed surveyor's report and plan tally with the permission granted under document No.7391/1981 dated 06.03.1981.ratio¶108
Though the Division Bench reserved liberty to the petitioner to place all relevant material before the respondent-Municipality, he was unsuccessful in his attempts; in the teeth of the dismissal of O.S.No.23 of 2015 and the licensed surveyor's report, this Court holds the petitioner miserably failed to substantiate his case for grant of the relief sought.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.), W.P.No.26805 of 2015, decided 11.12.2025 — Writ petition CLOSED without costs. Petitioner sought mandamus compelling Miryalaguda Municipality (R2) to act on its final show cause notice dated 30.06.2015 and stop/demolish R3's commercial building (stilt+G+2, 315 sq.yds, Sy.No.797, FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda), alleging arbitrary inaction after suspension of R3's building permission under S.344(6), A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (proceedings dt. 08.06.2015). The Court found that the 08.06.2015 proceedings had been set aside in W.P.No.18094/2015 (dt. 06.10.2015) and confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.1006/2015 (dt. 12.11.2015), which left the Municipality free to consider explanations/representations, measure the property if the identity dispute proved genuine, and halt construction only if it stood on the O.S.No.23/2015 subject plot; contempt C.C.No.2299/2016 stood disposed (dt. 25.01.2022) after surveyor measurement (report dt. 12.04.2016) and Municipality proceedings dt. 30.04.2016 finding plan and permission tally. Petitioner had lost O.S.No.195/2009 (decree dt. 25.02.2015, injunction in R3's favour) and O.S.No.23/2015 (dismissed dt. 21.01.2022, interim injunction dt. 14.07.2015 vacated), appeals pending without interim orders. Held: the decrees bind the petitioner; he failed to substantiate that R3 was building on his land; the relief sought no longer survives — writ petition closed, miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

¶1

[³³⁸³ I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gurram Bixam,^S/o. Naravana.Aqed about^{48 years,, Occ Business, H'No'35-} 321,Prakash^Nagar Miryalaguda Town,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of^{Telangana, rep by its Principal secretary,Mu.nicipal} Ad ministratibn^{Oepi rtmbni, Sticreta riat, Saifabad,Hydera bad.}

¶12

The Miryalaguda^{Municipality, Rep. by its commissioner,Miryalaguda,} Nalgonda District

¶13

Pelapolu satyanaray.lna,^{s/o Peda Mattaiah,,} 4geO^{about 65 years, occ} ngifiulture Rio.^{Jepthiveerappaguaem Villag6, trliryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda} District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ or^{Order or Direction more in th'b nature of the Writ of} Mandamus^{by declaring the action of the 2nd Respondentin not taking any steps} for demolition and^{stopping the construction of the buildingin pursuant of the} show cause^{notice dated 30.06.2015issued to the 3rd respondentfor} construction of^{commercialbuilding (stilt, G + 2 Floor ) to an extent of 315 sq'} yards in sy. No. 797^{situated at FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda} District is illegal,^{arbitrary and consequentlydirectthe 3rd Respondentto take} steps to demolish^{the building in pursuantof the show cause notice dated} 30.06.2015 issued^{by the 2nd respondent for constructionof commercialbuilding} (Stilt, G⁺ 2 Floor ) to^{an extentof 315 sq.yards in Sy' No' 797 situated at FCI}

¶16

Area, Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District and pass such other order or orders as this Honble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

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 direct the 3rd respondent not to make any construction activity for commerciat building stilt, G + 2 Floor to an extent of 315 sq. yards in Sy. No. 7g7 situated at FCt Area, Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the writ petition . 1

¶18

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 2nd respondent to take immediate steps to demolish the illegal construction made by the 3rd Respondent in pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.06.2015 issued by the 2nd Respondent for construction of commercial building (Stilt, G + 2 Floor ) to an extent of 315 sq. yards in Sy. No. 797 situated at FCI Area, sagar Road, Miryatguda, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the writ petition .

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K V SUBBA REDDY counsel for the Respondent No 1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN-URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondent No 2: sRl KRISHNA REDDY purrA, srnruolrue G o u n s e I ro r t h e Re s po n d e nt N o r, "r?Y Hf,|,[3,tJ[t,lli'33,h"I'F : o u N s E L APPEARING FOR SRt V. VENUGOPALA RAO ADVOCATE

¶20

The Court made the foilowing: ORDER

¶21

¶22

IN THE HGH COIIRT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI^{NARAYANAALISHETTY}

WP.No.26 5 of20l5

Dated:11.12.2025

Between:

Gurram Bixam

...Petitioner

And:

The State of Telangana, reptd.,^by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminis tration, Hyderabad and two others.

¶31

Respondents

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed to^issue a^{Writ of Mandamus} declaring the action of respondent^{No.2 in'not taking any steps for} stopping the construction and demolition^{of building being raised} by respondent No.3 in an extent of 315^{square yards in Sy.No.797} situated at FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda,^{NalgondaDistrict,} pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.06.2015^{issued by} respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary and for^{consequential}

relief.

LNA, J 17P.No.26805 of 2015

¶39

Heard Sri K.v.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Ravi Kondaviti, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri V.venugopala Rao, learned counsel-on-record for respondent No.3.

¶40

The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details, required for adjudication and disposal of the present Writ petition, are that the petitioner purchased open place admeasuring of 132 square yards bearing House No.34-363/1(Old No. 34-245lD) in Sy.No.797 out of Ac.0-15 gts situated in Miryalaguda Town and Municipality, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deed No.l430 of 2008, dated 12.03.2008, from one Nampaly Ram Narsaiah; that petitioner's vendor obtained permission for construction, vide Permit No.G/2337 of 1994, dated 04.08.1994, and constructed a compound wall around the site; that the petitioner also purchased 363 square yards bearing House No.34-36412 (OldNo.34-245lE) in Sy.No.797 out of Ac.0-05 gts situated at Miryalaguda Revenue village and Municipality under a registered sale deed No.1426 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 from Nampally Sakkubai, who obtained

¶41

¶42

LNA, J ll/P.No.26805 of 20IS

¶43

construction permission vide permit No.G/22g0 of tggl, dated 2l-07.1994, and constructed a compound wall around the site.

¶44

3.1. That respondent No.3 filed a suit vide o.S.No. L0 of 1,994 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Miryalguda against one of the vendors of the petitioner and one Aechuri Krishnamurthy for perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed on 17. 10.1997; that subsequently, respondent No.3 also filed a suit in oS.No.l95 of 2009 on the file of Additional Junior civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, basing on the documents executed by varakala Sathyanar ayana Reddy and Jonnalagadda Matta Reddy, which were filed in oS.No.l0 of 1994; that boundaries of the suit schedule properry in oS.No.10 of lgg4 and the subject property are different.

¶45

3.2. It was fuither averred that when respondent No.3 tried to occupy the petitioner's land, the petitioner filed a suit in oS.No.259 of 2ol2 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda and the same is pending; that in the meanwhile, the suit in os.No.l95 of 2009 filed by respondent No.3 was decreed on 25-02.2015 and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.s.No .6 of 2015 on the file of the

¶46

¶47

LNA, J WP.No.26805 of 2015

¶48

VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda and the same is pending; that taking advantage of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.l95 of 2009, respondent No.3 submitted an application on 07.04.2015 for grant of permission for construction of house and respondent No.2 granted permission vide proceedings No.Gl/13 ll/frvl/2015, dated 09.04.2015, for construction of Commercial Building consisting of stilt + Ground * two upper floors; that basing on the permission granted by respondent No.2 and dismissal of I.A.No.365 of 2015 in A.S.No.6 of 2015, vide order, dated 28.04.2015, respondent No.3 occupied the petitioner's plot on 03.05.2015 and commenced construction.

¶49

3.3. The petitioner submitted that he made application on 13.04.2015 to respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of permission granted to. respondent No.3 on the ground that petitioner has purchased the said land through registered sale deeds and there are civil disputes pending between them; that basing on the said application of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to respondent No.3 on 15.05.2015 calling for explanation as

¶50

to why the permission granted to him shall not be suspended; that respondent No.3 also got issued a legal notice through his advocate

¶51

¶52

LNA, J llP.No.26805 of 2015

¶53

on 20.04.20151' that again, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 on 22.05.2015 stating that respondent No.3 submitted application for construction of the house in respect of 315 square yards suppressing the fact that he sold 60 % square yards on 19.04.1985 to Pottumottu Sashikalla vide Registered document. No.1287 of 1985 and thus, respondent No.3 has got only an extent of 254.5 square yards of land in Sy.No.797, but got permission for construction of house property for 315 square yards of land; that respondent No.2 issued another show cause notice to

¶54

respondent No.3 on 26.05.2015, however, no explanation was submitted by respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No.2 suspended the permission for construction of Building vide proceedings No.G/l3lMMl2015 dated 08.06.2015 under Section 344(6) of AP. Municipalities Act, 1965; that aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18094 of 2015, however, this Court declined to grant an interim order.

¶55

3.4. It was funher averred that the petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.23 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda against respondent No.3 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of the property in dispute along with

¶56

¶57

LNA, J llP.No.2680S of 20IS

¶58

I.A.No.582 of 2015 seeking ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No.3 from creating any charge over the subject property and the said court was preased to granted an ad-interim injunction as prayed for, vide order dated 14.07.2015.

¶59

3.5. It was further averred that after the petitioner made complaint to respondent No.2 on 04.05.2015 regarding the farse representation made by respondent No.3 for obtaining building permission, one pottumuthu chandra Sekhar re-conveyed an extent of 30.25 square yards, vide document No.2753/2015.

¶60

3.6- It was fuither averred that subsequentry arso, the petitioner made complaints on 04.06.2015 and 26.06.20rs stating that respondent No.3 was making construction, though the same was cancelled and therefore, requested respondent No.2 to take immediate action to stop the construction and demolish the same; that respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice vide proceedings dated 15.06.2015 to respondent No.3 cailing for an expranation and further, issued Finar show cause Notice dated 30.06.2015, however respondent No.2 did not take further action pursuant to the said final show cause notice and aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶61

¶62

LNA, J llP.No.26805 of 2015

¶63

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submittedthat}

¶64

respondent No.3 was not^{owner of 315 square yards, as he has} alienated 60 % square^{yards to one PottumottuSashikallathrougha} registered sale deed, dated^{19.04.1985, and as such, he has got only} 254.5 square yards,^{however,respondentNo.3 has obtained} permission for construction over^{entire extent of 315 square yards} by suppressing the said^{fact and therefore, respondent No.2 has} rightly suspended the^{permission accordedto respondent No.3.} Learned counsel further^{submitted that there are multiple cases} pending between the petitioner and respondent^{No.3 in the form of} suits and appeal before^{various Courts, as avelred in the writ} affidavit, therefore, the action of^{respondent No.2 in not taking} steps to stop and demolish the^{construction raised by respondent} No.3 in the subject land, despite^{issuingfinal show cause notice} dated 30.06.2015, is arbitrary^{and contrary to the provisionsof the} A.P. Municipatities Act. By^{submittingthus, learned counsel} contended that the Writ Petition^{deservesto be allowed, directing} respondent No.2 to take steps to stop^{and demolishthe structures} raised by respondent No.3 in the^{subject land.}

s'- .

.+s?1h i; .,,

LNA, J ll/P.No.26805 of 2015

¶69

Per contra, leamed senior counsel appearing for^respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3^{flrled W.P.No.18094of 2015} challenging the proceedings, dated 08.06.20[5,^{whereunder the} building permission granted to him was suspended,^{and the said} Writ Petition was allowed vide Order, dated^{06-10-2015, granting} liberty to respondent-Municipality to issue notice^{calling upon the} petitioner therein, i.e., respondent No.3 herein to explain^with reference to total extent of land^possessed by him,^{on which} building permission was^{granted,and after affording opportunity to} the parties therein, i.e., the^{petitioner herein and respondent No.3} herein, to pass appropriate orders as^{warrantedby law, and till such} action is initiated and orders are^{passed, directed the Municipality} not to interfere with the construction^{activityof respondent No.3} herein and further, directed respondent^{No.3 not to deviate from} the building permission granted to^{him; and that aggrievedby the} Orders, dated 06-10-2015 passed in Writ^{Petition No.18094of} 2015, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1006 of 2015 and the^said Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court,^vide Order, dated l2,ll-2015, with the following observations:-

¶70

-"lt is open to the lst respondent, as observed by learned Judge tn paragraph 8, to furnish his explanation to^the

¶71

i l.-

¶72

¶73

LNA, J IlP.No.26805 of 2015

¶74

notice that may be issued by the Municipality in pursuance of the observations made in the aforementioned paragraph and it ls open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authority of the Municipality and place all the materials including the order of tnjunction, dated 14.07.2015, passed in O.S.No.23 of 2015 for consideration. We hope and trust that the concerned authority shall constder the l" respondent's explanation and the appellant's representotion in proper perspective, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weelcs .from^{the date of receipt of the said explanation and} representatton and f the dtspute regarding identity of the property is found to be genuine, it may proceed to measure the property at the cost of the parttes and fix boundaries. If il is found that the lst respondent is raistng construction on the plot of land, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.23 of 2015, the lst respondent shall stop the construction forthwith and approach the VIII Addittonal District Judge at Miryalaguda for appropriote relief tn O.S.No.23 of 2015. It is needless to mention that if the property where the Ist respondent is raising constructton is differentfrom the property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.23 of 2015, it would be open to him to proceed with the constructton. However, it would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Municipality and so also the civil Court. It is also needless to mention that the concerned authortty of the Municipality and the civtl Court where O. S.No.23 of

r'J

LNA. J t(P.No.26t0S ol zdts

¶79

2015 is pending sha, decide the proceedings/suit on merits in accordance with raw and untnJruenced by the observations made in this order as we, as the impugned order.,,

¶80

5.1. Learned senior counser further submitted that the petitioner filed c.c .No-2299 of 2016 compraining vioration of orders dated 12'll.20rs, passed in w.A.No.r006 of 2015 and in the said case, the commissioner, Miryalguda Municip ality, filed counter stating that after receipt of the orders in wA.No. r006 of 2015, a ricensed surveyor arong with Town pranning Staff measured the plot in dispute and submitted a report arong with measurement and map to Miryalguda Municipality on l2-04-2016;that basing on the said report, the respondenrMuniciparity passed proceedings No.G/ 2078/2016, dated 30_04-2016; and that rhis Courr, taking into consideration the said counter and also the dismissar of suit_ oS'No'23 of 2or 5 fired by the petitioner, disposed of the said contempt case, vide order, dated 25-or-2022,with the forowing observations:-

¶81

"In the considered opinion of this Court, no further orders are required o be passed by the respondent as he has already passed Order, dated 30.4.2016 which was dtspatched to the parties, who were litigating over

¶82

: I I

¶83

¶84

LNA,J l/P.No.26805 of 2015

¶85

¶86

t: li ri li

¶87

their rights. Resultantly, the present Contempt Case stands dtsposed of with liberty to the parties to assatl the orders passed by the respondent in accordance with law."

¶88

5.2. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3^further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015 filed by the^petitioner before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, against respondent No.3 herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of house plot admeasuring 495 sq.^yards was dismissed vide^judgment and decree, dated 2l-01-2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.81 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending and no interim Orders are granted. He further submitted that against the decree dated 25.01,.2015 passed in OS.No.l95 of 2009, which was filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.06 of 2015 before the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda and the same was dismissed on 21-01-2022. Challenging the Orders in A"S.No.06 of 2015, the petitioner herein filed S.A.No.l52 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending and no interim Orders are^granted.

¶89

¶90

LNA, J lltP.No.2680S of 20IS

¶91

5.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in view of the orders passed by this court in wA.No.r006 of 2015 and cc.No.2299 of 2016 and the judgments passed in the aforesaid suits and appear inter se between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the petitioner has no rocus standi to maintain the present writ Petition and accordingly, the writ petition is riable to be dismissed.

¶92

6' This case has a chequered history. Initially, respondent No.3 filed a suit vide os.No.rg5 0f 2009 against the petitioner for injunction and subsequently, petitioner filed a suit os.N o.23 of 2015 against respondent No.3 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the subject land. The suit-os.No.r95 of 2009 filed by respondent No.3 was allowed, vide order dated 25.02.2015 and the suit-oS.No.23 of 2015 fired by peritioner stood dismissed, vide judgment dated 2l.Ol.2O2Z.

¶93

It is relevant to note that after the decree was passed against respondent No.3 in oS.No.r95 of 2009 and the same was subsisting, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 0g.06.2015 cancelling the building permission granted to the petitioner. The said proceedings were chailenged by the petitioner by filing writ

¶94

¶95

¶96

LNA, J lltP.No.26805 of 2015

¶97

Petition No.18094 of 2015 and^{during the pendency of the said} Writ Petition, respondent No.2^{issuedshowcause notice, dated} 30.06.2015, by referring to^{the proceedingsdated 08.06.2015,} Whereby the building^{permission was cancelled, and also some} complaints, and directed^{the petitionerto stop the construction} activity.

¶98

However, the cancellation^{proceedings dated 08.06.2015} were set aside by this Court in Writ^{Petition No.18094 of 2015,} vide orders dated 06.10.2025^{and the said order was confirmed by a} Division Benbh of this Court in Writ^{Appeal No.1006of 2015,} wherein it was categorically observed^that if^{respondentNo.3} herein is raising construction on the^{plot of land which is different} from the subject matter of OS.No.23^{of 2015, he can proceedwith} the construction and vice versa, respondent^{No.3 was directedto} stop the construction forthwith. Further,^{it was left opento both the} parties, i.e., the petitioner herein and respondent No.3^{herein to} place before the authority concerned of the^respondent- Municipality all the relevant material,^{and funherobservedthat if} the authorities, after considering the same, find^{that the dispute} regarding the identity of^{the propertyis genuine,they may proceed}

¶99

¶100

r'-'

¶101

LNA. J tvP.No.26805 o1zfus

¶102

to measure the property. compraining non-compriance of the said order, the petitioner fired cc.No.22 99 of 20r6,in which, as stated supra, considering the counter fired by the commissioner of respondent-Municiparity, and also taking into account the fact that the suit-oS.No.23 of 20r5 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, this court dismissed the said contempt case, vide order dated 25.01.2022.

¶103

9 'fhus, from chronology of the above events/proceedings, it is evidenr that the petitioner has failed to prove his case in o.s.No.23 of 2015, which is filed by hirn, as welr as in o.s.No.r95 of 2009, which is filed by respondent No.3 and consequentry, in both the said suits, judgments were passed against the petitioner and the decrees passed in both the suits is binding on the petitioner. Even the injunction order dated 14.07.2015 passed in favour of the petitioner in os.No.23 0f 2or5 stands vacated in view of subsequent dismissar of the suit itserf by the triar court vide judgment dated 2t.0r-2022.on the other hand, the suit oS.No.r95 of 2009 was decreed in favour of respondent No.3 granting injunction in respect of the suit schedure property, which is binding on the petitioner

¶104

¶105

LNA, J ll/P.No.26805 of²⁰¹⁵

¶106

\ \

¶107

Further, it is^{apt to note that though the Division Bench of} this Court in W.A.No.1006^{of 2015 reserved liberty to the} petitioner to place before the^{respondent-Municipalityall the} relevant material in support^{of his case that the property in which} respondent No.3 is raising^{constructionis sameas that of the} subject matter of the suit^{in O.S.No.23 of 2015, the petitioner was} unsuccessful in his^attemPts.

¶108

1 1. Apart from the above,^{the respondent-Municipalityhas} issued proceedings dated^{30.04.2016 to the effect that the report} and plan submitted by the^{licensed Surveyorand the permission} granted under document No.739l1981,^{dated 06.03.1981are} tallying with each other.

¶109

In'the light of the aforesaid^{facts, particularly, in view of} the fact that notice^{dated08.06.2015,purstant to which showcause} notice, dated 30.06.2015, was^{issued, the inaction of whichis} complained in this Writ Petition,^{was set aside in Writ Petition} No.18094 of 2015, which was confirmed^{in w.A.No. 1006 of 2015} and further, as the petitioner faited^{to prove that respondent No.3 is} raising construction in the land owned^{by him and also in the teeth} of the report of the licensed^{Surveyor,this Court holdsthat the}

¶110

¶111

t?'

¶112

LNA, J l{P.No.26805 of²⁰¹⁵

¶113

petitioner miserably^{failed to substantiatehis case for grant of the} relief sought for in this^{Writ Petition.}

¶114

This Court^{also takes note of the fact that the petitioner} sought to direct^{the authorities to take action pu$uant to the notice} dated 30.06.2015,^{thereby stoppingand demolishing the building} constructed by respondent^{No.3 in the subject land i.e., in an extent} of 315 square^{yards situated at FCI Area,SagarRoad, Miryalguda,} Nalgonda District.

¶115

After filing^{of the present writ Petition,as narrated above,} much water has flown^{underthe bridge and in all the cases,the} petitioner was unsuccessful^{to substantiate his case, particularly,in} view of dismissal of OS.No.23^{of 2015filed by him for declaration} of title over the^{subject land and the report of the licensed} Surveyor, the relief^{sought for in this Writ Petition no longer} survives for adj udication.

¶116

Accordingly, this^{Writ Petitionis closed'}

¶117

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shall stand closed'}

¶118

No costs

¶119

SD/.A. SREENIVASA^REDDY STANT REGISTRA,R /

¶120

//TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶121

One CC to^{SRl. K. V. SUBBAREDDY' Advocate [OPUC]}

To,

Two CCs to^{GP FOR MCPLADMN-URBANDEV ,Highcourt for the State of} Telangana at^{HYderabad .} [OUT]

¶126

- ONC CC tO^{SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR}

¶127

MUNICIPALITIES,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶128

4,oneCCtoSRl.V.VENUGoPALARAo,AdvocateloPucl

¶129

Two CD CoPies

¶130

DAN Ny

\ \

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED i11l12t2O2S

I
lr D E.{

WP.No.26805 of 2O1S

l iiE l:' i '-i<br>( '-,r: i\t .
I
I 2 X BEr frili
* *
c.l--'.q 6.. *,-ut

¶139

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶140

\9/ aS
93

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Non-action of respondent No.2 (Miryalaguda Municipality) after issuance of final show cause notice dated 30.06.2015 to respondent No.3 — failure to take steps to stop and demolish the commercial building (Stilt + Ground + 2 floors, 315 sq. yards, Sy.No.797, FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda) — challenged as illegal and arbitrary through a Writ of Mandamus.¶60
Miryalaguda Municipality (respondent No.2) · 30.06.2015
Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased open place of 132 sq. yards (House No.34-363/1, Old No.34-245/D) in Sy.No.797 from Nampaly Ram Narsaiah under registered sale deed No.1430 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008; vendor held construction Permit No.G/2337 of 1994 dated 04.08.1994 and built compound wall.¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioner also purchased 363 sq. yards (House No.34-364/2, Old No.34-245/E) in Sy.No.797 from Nampally Sakkubai under registered sale deed No.1426 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008; she held construction permission (permit No.G/2280/1994, printed 'tggl') dated 21-07-1994 and built compound wall.¶43
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 filed suit O.S.No.10 of 1994 (Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda) against one of petitioner's vendors and Aechuri Krishnamurthy for perpetual injunction; dismissed on 17.10.1997.¶44
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 filed suit O.S.No.195 of 2009 (Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda) against petitioner for perpetual injunction; decreed in his favour on 25-02-2015.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appealed the decree in A.S.No.6 of 2015 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda (stated pending in the affidavit; per respondent No.3's counsel later dismissed on 21-01-2022, giving rise to S.A.No.152 of 2022).¶45
Prior proceeding
On respondent No.3's application dated 07.04.2015, respondent No.2 granted permission (proceedings No.G/1311/M/2015 dated 09.04.2015) for a commercial building of stilt + ground + two upper floors.¶48
Prior proceeding
Dismissal of I.A.No.365 of 2015 in A.S.No.6 of 2015 (order dated 28.04.2015); respondent No.3 thereupon occupied petitioner's plot on 03.05.2015 and commenced construction.¶48
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied on 13.04.2015 to respondent No.2 for cancellation of the permission granted to respondent No.3 (civil disputes pending); further applications of 22.05.2015 alleged suppression of sale of land (registered document No.1287 of 1985 dated 19.04.1985, leaving respondent No.3 only 254.5 sq. yards against permission for 315); respondent No.2 issued show cause notices dated 15.05.2015 and 26.05.2015.¶49
Prior proceeding
Receiving no explanation from respondent No.3, respondent No.2 suspended the building permission vide proceedings No.G/131/M/2015 dated 08.06.2015 under Section 344(6) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965.¶54
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.18094 of 2015 challenging the proceedings dated 08.06.2015; interim order was initially declined.¶54
Prior proceeding
W.P.No.18094 of 2015 was allowed vide Order dated 06-10-2015 (court's recap prints '06.10.2025'), setting aside the proceedings dated 08.06.2015, granting liberty to the Municipality to issue fresh notice and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to both parties; till then Municipality not to interfere with construction, and respondent No.3 not to deviate from the sanctioned permission.¶69
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the order dated 06-10-2015 in W.P.No.18094/2015, petitioner filed W.A.No.1006 of 2015; a Division Bench disposed of it vide Order dated 12.11.2015 (printed 'l2,ll-2015'), leaving it open to the Municipality to consider explanations/representations, measure the property at parties' cost if the identity dispute proved genuine, stop construction forthwith if it stood on the O.S.No.23/2015 subject plot, else allow it subject to the Municipality/civil-court outcomes, all decisions to be uninfluenced by the DB's observations.¶69
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed O.S.No.23 of 2015 (VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda) against respondent No.3 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of the disputed property.¶55
Prior proceeding
In O.S.No.23 of 2015, I.A.No.582 of 2015: ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No.3 from creating any charge over the subject property was granted vide order dated 14.07.2015.¶58
Prior proceeding
After petitioner's complaint dated 04.05.2015 about respondent No.3's alleged false representation, Pottumuthu Chandra Sekhar re-conveyed 30.25 sq. yards vide document No.2753/2015.¶59
Prior proceeding
Petitioner complained on 04.06.2015 and 26.06.2015 that respondent No.3 was constructing despite cancellation; respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 15.06.2015 and thereafter the final show cause notice dated 30.06.2015.¶60
Prior proceeding
In C.C.No.2299 of 2016 (contempt alleging violation of orders dated 12-11-2015 in W.A.No.1006/2015), the Commissioner's counter recorded that a licensed surveyor with town-planning staff measured the disputed plot and submitted report and map to the Municipality on 12-04-2016, on whose basis proceedings No.G/2078/2016 dated 30-04-2016 were passed.¶80
Prior proceeding
Considering the Municipality's counter and the dismissal of petitioner's suit O.S.No.23/2015, the Court disposed of C.C.No.2299 of 2016 vide order dated 25-01-2022 (printed '25-or-2022'), with liberty to parties to assail the respondent's orders in accordance with law.¶80
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.23 of 2015 (petitioner's suit for title and possession over 495 sq. yards) dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21-01-2022; petitioner's appeal A.S.No.81 of 2022 before this Court pending with no interim orders.¶88
Prior proceeding
Against the decree in O.S.No.195 of 2009 (printed decree date '25.01,.2015'; affidavit records 25-02-2015), petitioner's appeal A.S.No.06 of 2015 (VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda) was dismissed on 21-01-2022; petitioner filed S.A.No.152 of 2022 before this Court, pending with no interim orders.¶88

Gurram Bixam, S/o. Narayana,Aged about 48 years, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Bixam, S/o. Narayana,Aged about 48 years, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vojjala Karunanandam Vs The State of Telangana

Gedam Tukaram and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

M.a.Majeed Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ganta @ Sarva Jyothi

K.Subbaraju, and Another, Vs Prl.Secy., M.A. and Ud., Hyd., and 2 Others

Srinivas Machidi Vs Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Private Limited