Disposed

Gudimalla Nageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/3404/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming ownership of small plots in Survey No.80, Dhamsalapuram, challenged a final layout plan dated 19.01.2023 granted to other respondents, alleging the vendor sold more land than she owned per a Tahsildar enquiry report. Having filed no representation to the Corporation, they were permitted to submit one, which the Corporation must consider with notices and hearing within six week

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit representation to Khammam Municipal Corporation for cancellation/reconsideration of layout; Corporation to decide within six weeks with notice and hearing.

Gudimalla Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STAIEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{SIXTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 3404OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gudimalla^{NageswaraRao, S/o Kotaiah,Aged48 years' occBusiness'} R/o DhamsalaPUram,^Khammam.

¶9

Pabbireddy Ramesh,^{S/o Venkat Rao, aged 54 years,Occ: Business'R/o} DhamsalaPuram,^Khammam

¶10

3.1/andadaouShivakumar,S/oVenkatramaiah,aged46years'Occ: Business, R/o^{Dhamsalapuram, Khammam'}

¶11

4.NelluriGuravaiah,S/oChalamaiah,aged50years,Occ:Business'Fl/o DhamsalaPuram,^Khammam.

¶12

Gudimalla Rohi,^{W/oNageswaraRao' aged 57 years, Occ:Business'Fl/o} DhamsalaPuram,^Khammam.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telangana,^{rep by Principal Secretary (Municipal Administration),} Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶16

The Khammam^{Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner' Khammam} Town and District.

¶17

The Sub-Registrar,^{Khammam. Khammam Town and District'}

¶18

Ivlandadaou Lakshmi,^{W/o Ramakrishna Reddy,Aged55 Yellsr} 99c'

¶19

6rriirrti"[, RE n .N" .1-a / t, Dna,.alapuram, Khammam District' Khammam.

¶20

Alla Veeranjaneya^{Reddv, S/o Venkata Reddv, Aged} 19,v-"-?!tT9^Plt1^",tt' - nlo H.No. Z'-gO+, Onams-alapuram, Seetharampuram' Khammam lown ano District.

¶21

Meda Thulishama,^{W/o Late VenkataReddy,Age' 86 YearsOcc HouseWife}

¶22

nyo. ff .flo.t -44, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam Town and District'

¶23

7 t/andhadaou Shankar^{Reddy,S/oPapi Reddy,Age 55 Years,O-cc} .^. ' ii;;il;;;ii/". H.tt". s-48, x6inuru, Dhamsalipur-am, Town and District

¶24

lVlandhdapu Sat/anarayana Reddy,^{S/o Pedda Papi Recdy, Age. 53 Years,} Occ. Business, I1/o. H.No. 1-47,^{Dhamsalapuram, Seetharamapuram,} Khammam Tou., I and District

¶25

Pasham Brahmr Reddy, S/o Venkata^{Reddy, Age.60 Years,Occ.Business,} R/o. H.No 7-9-i'07 , Sreeram Hills,Dhamsalapuram,^{Seetharamapuram,} Khammanr To//1 and District

¶26

tvleda Bikshma lleddy, S/o Venkata^{Reddy, Age. 70 Years, Occ. Business} R/ o. Dharnsalapuram, Seetharamapuram,^{KhammamTown and District.}

¶27

Pittala vani, W/.) Late Seshi Reddy, Age. 33^{Years, Occ. HousewifeRJo.} H.No. 2-2125, K: tturu, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam^{Town and District}

¶28

'l2.lvlohammed Shajahan Sulthana, W/o. It/ohammed Sardar Pasha, Age. 55 years, Ocr;. HoLrse Wife, R/o. H.No. 11-10-7071313, Burhanpuram, Khammam Town and Distr ct

¶29

Gonela Satyanarayana, S/o. Hanumaiah,^{Age. 70 years. Ccc. Business R/o.} Dhamsalapura'r, Khammam Town and District.

¶30

Pasham /ijaya Chandra Reddy, S/o. Brahma^{Reddy, Age.38 Years, Occ.} Business, R/o. ll.No. 7-9-207 , Sree Ram^{Hills, Dhamsalapuram,Khammam} Town and Distr ct.

¶31

Kuchipudi Pha' ndhar alias Phanindhar Reddy, S/o^{Nagli Reddy,Age.45} years, Oc:. Bus;iness. R/o. H.No. 5-2-1231A, Shanthi Nagar, Khammam Town and Distri,:t.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition Lrnder Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd a^prayrng that in the circumstances stateri in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an rrder or direction or writ more particLrlarly in the nature of Mandamus duly ,leclaring the impugned Lay Olt Permission No. 001496/LO/DTCP/3C 1B/016712022, daled 19.O1 2023, in lancl admeasuring about Acers 9.39 Guntas Survey Numbers 80/^E/ 1 ,801^F11, 80/^8/1 , B0l^812,801"C/2, 80/^c/'l , 80l"El1l1 ,Bt.tnFl1l1, 80/"A, 801^Dl2l2,7Bl^D11,781'Cl1 ,801^E12, B0/^E/3, 7Bl^D12, 7Bl^C|2, 83 ^A/1 , 831^A12, 85/nB, 85/nC, 801^Dl4, 30/^D/6, 79/1,^{(As per} ADSLR Sy Ncs. 7r\lPaft, 79lParl, 8O/Part and 83/Part), at Dhamsalapuram Revenue Village, Khirmmam Drstrict as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice anc: sanctioned without there being the lan,l, and consequently, set aside the same with a direction to reconsider the applicatron of the private respondents 5 to 15 for lay out permission only after duly verifying the documents and physical verificzrlion of the total extent with^proper survey, in the interest of juslice

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Courl. may be pleased to suspend the impugned layout vide Permission No. 001496/LO/DTCP 130181016712022, dated 19.O1.2023, in land admeasuring about Acers 9.39 Guntas S urvey Numbers 80/nE/ 1 , 801^F11, 80/^E]/'l , B0l^B.12, 801^C12, 80l"cl1 , 801^El1 l1 .BOt^F 1111, 80/^A, B0l"Dl2l2, 781^Dl1 , 781^\Ct1 , 801^E12, 80/^E/3,

¶36

:;j'.

¶37

781^D12, 781^C12,83/^4/1 ,^{83t^A12,85/^8, 85/^C, 801^D14, 80/^D/6,79/1 , (As per} ADSLR Sy Nos. 78lPart,^{7}tPafi,8o/Partand 83/Part), at Dhamsalapuram} Revenue Village, Khammam^{Districtand dir€qLtne 3rd respondent not to entertain} any sale transactions in^{respect of plots fallingin the abovelay outin the interest} of^justice

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. P RAMASHARANA SHARMA}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMNURBAN DEV}

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI P. SRIDHAR RAOSC FOR KHAMMAM} MC

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent^{NO.3: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4to 15:} ---

¶43

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶44

::-*=7

¶45

l'HI.] IION'I}LE SIII JUSTICI! K.I,AKSHMAN

¶46

\VRI'I' PFITITION No. 3404 of 2025

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Hearcl lcarned counsel for petiti()ners and Sri P, Sriclhar I{ao, learned Standing Counsel fot' Khammam Municipal f'1r'poration appearing fbr 2''d respondcnt

¶49

Pclitit.rr,:rs itrc c)aiming that they ate the absolute owners and lrosscssor'; o1'land adrneasuring 600 Scl.yards, 40() Sq.yars, 200 Sq.vald..700 Sq.yards and Ac.0.10 gunl.as, in total Acs.0.25 70 {Lrntas, in Survey No.80/EEi2 situatcd at Dharnsalapunun Rc'n,enuc Village, Khammarn Urban Mandal, rvithin tlre lirrrits o1- 2"'1 respondent Municipal Corpttratiou, ttn the slrerrgth of rcgistered sale deeds bearinl; document Nos.5991 ol 2018 dated 29.05.2018; 8170 oi 2018 dated 2101.20t8; 12680 ol'2018 dated 22.1.2018; 1390 o1'2019 dated 14.02.1019 and 948 of 2019 dated 07.01.2019. Thev have also obtaincd personal loan from DCCB Bank,

¶50

2 KL, J w.P.No.3404 ot 2O2s

¶51

Khammam Rural Mandal. They have purchased the said propefty from 4'l' respondent.

¶52

It is the specific contention of petitioners that 4th respondent is the owner of Ac.0.15 guntas of land and even then, she has sold Ac. 1.0070 guntas of land to various individuals under various registered sale deeds. ln proofofthe same, petitioners have filed a copy of enquiry reporl dated 28.06.2024 submitted by Tahsildar, Khammam Urban, to Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Khammam. Without considering the said aspect and by way o1 misrepresentation of facts, respondent Nos.5 to 15 obtained final layout plan dated 19.01.2023 from 2"d responrlent. Therefore, petitioners are seeking to declare the impugned final layout plan dated 19.01.2023 issued by 2nd responclcnt as illegal.

¶53

Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioners have not submitted any representation to 2nd respondent narrating the above stated facts and enclosing copy ofthe enquiry report dated 28.06.2024 submitted by Tahsildar, Khammam Urban, to Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Khammarn.

¶54

¶55

l( 1,, J W.P.No.31(l'1o1²⁰²⁵

¶56

i I

¶57

Accordrng to the learned Standing Counsel^{appearing for} 2nd respouclent, 2"d respondent has^{issuedthe final layout plan} dated 19.01.2023 on considering^prima fa,:ie^{title and} possession o1' respondent Nos.5 to l5 ovel^{the subject} property. If petitioners have any^{grievance, they haveto} submit representation to^{2nd respondent and2"d respondentwill} consider the^iarne.

¶58

In the light o1'^{tl.re abovesaid submissic,n, this Writ} Pctition is ilisposcd o1' permitting^{petitioners to submit a} reprcsentation to 2nd respondent narrating^{the afore-stated facts} and enclosinq all the relevant documents^{includingenquiry} reporl dated 28.06.2024 submitted by^{Tahsildar,Khammam} Ulban, to Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Khamrnam, witha} request to cancel the flnal layout^plan dated^{19.0t.2023 issued} in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 15, within^{one rveek and on} receipt r:lf th: said application, 2nd respondent shall^consider and disllose of the same in accordance with the^Telangana Municipalitics Act, 2019, by putting pctitioners and an respondent l{os.4 to 15 on notice and affording them

¶59

¶60

KL, J w.P No 340{ ol2O25

¶61

opportunity of hearing. 2'd respondent shall complete the said

¶62

exercise within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter

¶63

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶64

closed.

¶65

SD/.T. JAYASREE ASS T NT REGISTRAR -/

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary (Municipal Administration)' Secretariat' Hyderabad'}

¶70

1 Khammam^{lrlunicipal Corporation'KhammamTown and}

¶71

2- The^{Commissloner,} District.

¶72

3 The Sub-Registrar,^{Khammam' Khammam Town and District'} 4 One CC to^{SRl. P RAMASHARANA SHARMA Advocate [OPUCI} 5 One CC^{to SRI P. SRIDHAR RAO SC FOR KHATUN/AMIVCIOPUCI} 6 Two CCs to^{GP FOR tvlCPLADTUNURBAN DEV 'High Court for the State of} Telangana. [OUT]

¶73

Two^{CCstoGP for Revenue' High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶74

8 Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212025

ORDER

WP.No.3404 ot 2025

0 I AP R 2S[
\t., ,r, *;l i
, o t,A I c

¶82

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ./1 /.2 / ,/3zf

Gudimalla Nageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudimalla Nageswara Rao 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

Smt. Hemlata Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Santok Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Mogili Kinnera Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Niazuddin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Zubair Vs The State of Telangana

D.Padmaja Vs The State of Telangana