Disposed

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025WP/32380/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection of possession and construction on her house plot against revenue authorities claiming it as ceiling surplus land vested in the State under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The High Court directed authorities not to interfere with possession without following due statutory procedure if they assert any claim.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession over subject property without following prescribed legal procedure; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32380 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi, W/o. Kudumula Darshan, D/o. Late Smt. S. Lakshmi alias G. Lakshmi and Late Satyanarayana, aged about 57^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.13-3-506/38/250, Keshavaswamy Nagar, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad-Telangana state

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, to Revenue Department, Secretariate, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Lakidikapool, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Kulsumpura Police Station, Kulsumpura, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment including constructional activity carrying on by the Petitioner over the Petitioner Private, Owned and^{possessed propertyi.e.} House part of Plot No. 105, and Part of House No.^{'13-4-561/8/1,} Admeasuring 100 Sq. yards Situated at New Ganga Nagar, Jiyaguda, Karwan Circle - Xlll, GHMC, Kairtabad Zone, Asifnagar Mandal Hyderabad District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against Article 16,19,21 and³⁰⁰ A of Constitution of lndia.

¶17

:-+FW7 ,/

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment including constructional activity carrying on by the petitioner over the petitioner private, owned and possessed property i.e. House part of Plot No. 105, and part of House No. 13-4-561/6/1 , Admeasuring 100 Sq. yards Situated at New'Ganga Nagar, Jiyaguda, Karwan Circle - Xlll, GHMC, Kairtabad Zone, Asifnagar Mandat Hyderabad District forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NIMMALA SHESHIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

trrRIT PETITION No. 32380 of2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is iiled seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment including constructiona-l activity carrying on by the petitioner in his property i.e., House No.13-456118ll, admeasuring 1O0 square yards, situated at New Ganga Nagar, Jiyaguda, Karwal Circie - XIII, GHMC, Kairatabad Zone, Asifanagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶26

The petitioner claims to be the owner and^possessor of house property i.e., House No. 13-4-561/B/ 1, admeasuring 100 square yards, situated at New Ganga Nagar, Jiyaguda, Karwan Circle - XIII, GHMC, Kairatabad Zone, Asifanagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, having acquired the same by virtue of registered parlition deed bearing Doc.No.5980 of 2O16 dated 06.12.2016. It is stated that after partition of the^subject property, the petitioner obtained building permission from the competent authority for construction of individual residential building consisting of stilt for parking plus two upper floors

¶27

¶28

it'

¶29

vide permit No.410092/5598lcHMCl2O24 on 22.06.2024 ard commenced the construction activity. The grievalce of the petitioner is that despite the same, the respondent authorities are frequently interfering with his construction activit5z over the subject prope rty without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, on the ground that the subject land is ceiling surplus land as per the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (for short "the ULC Act") arrd the same is vested in the Government.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that there was an existing structure since long time and the same was subject matter of partition deed vide document bearing No.598O of 2076; at no point of time the respondent authorities have issued notices as required under the provisions of the ULC Act; and without following due procedure, the respondent authorities are not only interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner, but also making efforts to dispossess him from the subject property.

¶31

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject property without following due procedure as prescribed under law, if they are having any claim over the subject property or if the property is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances as per the provisions of the ULC Act.

¶34

Pending miscellaleous applications, if any, shall stard

¶35

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

¶37

SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR 1 //rRUE coPY// i SEC?ION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

in?-oidtiiJi c.itGclor,^{Hyderabad District at Lakidikapool, Hvderabad'} 3. The Tahsildar, Asifnagai^{Mandal, Asifnagar,Hy^derabad} 4. fne Siition H6use Officer,^{Kulsumpura Police Station, Kulsumpura,} Hvderabad.

¶41

ciir"-C-Cio Sru NIMMALA^{SHESHIDHAR, Advocate} [OPUC]6. ini" cc.i"-oi ron^{neveruuE, HighCourt for the State of Telangana' at} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶42

i;;-b6Id cFlon^{HoME,Hish court for the State of relansana, at} Hyderabad. [OUTI

I Two CD Copies

PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710412025

ORDER

WP.No.32380 of 2024

;_)' I -\4,1
t ,.,"'
.9
!
" ii
1: 'l
\c.\ !:
i'
\as i
\tt' <br>) o(
,)

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

<br>t

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi 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

Yanugu Veeranjaneya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sara Krishna Goud Vs State of Telangana

Smt. N. Lakshmi Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Kotapati Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chintala Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

Chintala Venkata Kishore Vs The State of Telangana