Disposed

Madagani Satyanarayana and 6 others v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025WP/6388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plot owners sought a mandamus directing revenue authorities to decide their representations for a no objection certificate and construction permission for pucca houses. The court directed them to file fresh detailed representations with documents within eight weeks; the authorities must then issue notices, hear all parties and pass orders in accordance with law within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Madagani Satyanarayana and 6 others Vs State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6388 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

l,4adagani Satyanarayana, Sio. Mallaiah, lndian, Age. 65 Years, Occ. Rtd. Employee in SCC Ltd., presently agriculturist, Rl/o. H.No.2-5-588/4, 3rd Floor l/othinagar, Khammam Town and Distrlct.

¶10

l\iladagani Shekunthala, W/o.lvladagani Satyanarayana, lndian, Age. 55 Years, Occ. House Wife R/o. H.No.2-5-588/4, 3rd Floor lVlothinagar,

¶11

.^{Khammam Town and District.}

¶12

Arkala Ramadevi, Wio. Venkateswarlu, Age. House Wife, Age. 56 Yrs. Occ.House wife, R./o. Ho.No.15-11-28/G4, Sri Laxmi Ganesh Apartment, VDOs Colony, Opp. G P Office, Khammam District.

¶13

Palika Laxmi, W/o Saidulu, Age. 52. Occ. House Wife. RJo. H.No 2-55l588l4lAl9, [.4othi Nagar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶14

ftilohamad Jalbussa, W/o. Abbas, Age.55 years, Occ.House Wife

¶15

fvlohamad lt/ujafar, S/o. Abbas, Age.36 years. Occ.un-employee.

¶16

Hameeda Begum, W/o. Phatan Shareef Khan, Age. 40 years, Occ. House Wife. (Petitioner Nos 5,6,7 R/o.H.No.22-'198. Sundaraiah Nagar, Yellandu, Badradri - Kothagudem)

¶17

Arkala Kousalya, Wio. Balakrishna, Age. 65 years, Occ. House Wife. R/o. H.No.4-66, Near Shivalayam Temple, Karepalli Post, Khammam District

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

AND

¶20

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶21

2 The District Collector, Collector Office, Khammam,

¶22

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District.

¶23

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Singareni, Khammam District.

¶24

5 The Secretary, Grampanchayath, Singareni Village and lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th: High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lr4andamus dectaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the Representations for grant of No Obj_. ;tion Certrficate with construction permission for construction of pacca Houses n Plot Nos.S,6, 7 of Zone No.l and Plot Nos.10, 11, 12, 14. 9 of Zone No.l all plots situated in Sy.No.38 of Singareni Vrllage and t,4andal, Khammam Drst-i ;t, as illegal, null vord, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents tc issue No Objection Certificate with grant of Construction permission, permil i rg the Petitioners for construction of Pacca Houses in the subject plots along v ith Panchanama with fixed boundaries by tr,4andal Surveyor.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶28

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the r:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court n'i y be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to consider the Representation of pet,1 oners dtd.^.l 5-01 -2008 fo rthwith.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKH,1 t

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶34

IIIRIT PETITION No.6388 OF 2022

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliet

¶37

".....to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mand.omus d.eclaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representations for grant of No Objection CertiJicate uith conshttction permission for constntction of Po,ccrr. Houses in plot Nos,S,6,Z of Zone No.7 and plot Nos.1O,7 7,12,14,9 of Zone No.II, all plo* situated in Sg.No.S8 of Singareni uiltage and Mand.al, Khammam District, a.s illegal, null uoid., arbitrary and. consequentlg direct the respond.ents to issue lVo ObJection CertiJicate uith grant of Construction Pertnission, pertnitting the petitioners for construction of po'cc<r Houses ln the subject Plots along with Panchandtna with Jixed boundaries bg Mand.al Survegor and to pass s-uch other order or orders...n

¶38

Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are the

¶39

owners and possessors in respect of lands located at plot

¶40

Nos.S, 6 ,7 of Zone No.l and plot Nos. 1O, 11, 12, 14, g Zone-ll, both situated in Sy.No.38 of Singareni Village and Mandal, Khammam District. The petitioners have applied for

¶41

¶42

EYY,J l+aP.No.6388 OF 2022

¶43

issuance of "ownership certificate" by paying t1i r requisite fee to respondent No.4. However, respondent No.4 reither issued "No Objection Certificate" nor given any re:l'onse lor the petitioners' representation. Hence, the present r, 'it petition.

¶44

Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandra Shekar, lezu'rr:d counsel for the petitioners ald learned Assistant Governmt tt Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of responden Nos.1 Lo 4 Perused the material available on record.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners su . mits that the requisite fee for issuance of "ownership certilt:tte" was paid under Rc.No.B/ L38 l2OO4 on 30.03.2004, anr 1 respondent No.4, the Tatrsildar, accepted the payment ancl I rade an entry in the office cash book (Serial-I, Page No. 64). Sir ce the date of purchase, the petitioners have been living in a tt atched house thereon, which has now become dilapidated. 'l re petitioners aJe currently residing in rented accommoda, on. To build

¶46

Pucca houses, they applied to responder I No.5/Gram Panchayat, Singareni Village. Respondent No.5 then issued

¶47

EYY,J lf.P.No.63EE OF 2022

(',

Memo No.11/GPS/08 dated 29.07.2OO8, directing them to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from respondent No.4 and a panchnama by the Mandai Surveyor. Although the Surveyor had already submitted the plan to respondent No.4, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 neither issued the certihcate nor responded to the petitioners' representations.

¶52

4.L. In responsc to the petitioners' representation dated 23.07.2019, respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide R.C. No.A4IGOVT /OOO9 l2Ol9 dated O2.O9.2019, directing respondent No.4 to consider representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as per rules. Despite the said direction, respondent No.4 has not taken any action. Hence, the petitioners seek to pass appropriate orders on their representations.

¶53

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that for issuance of NOC the authorities must follow the rules. He further submits that the petitioners' case was sent by respondent No.2 vide R.C.No.A4lGovtlOOOSl20tg (d"Eq ,/

¶54

¶55

EYI/,J lY.1'.h'o.6lE8 OF 2022

¶56

O2.O9.2O19) and the same is being looked into. -Iou,ever, due to COVID-19 restrictions, inspite of lapse ol 1ot of time, nothing could be done by respondent No.4. Ie, therefore, submits that a direction may be given to thc tetitioners to make a detailed representation to responden No.4 afresh, a-long with the necessaqr documents to establr: tr their case, who in turn shail forward the same for consid- -ation bv the respondent No.2 and to pass appropriate orders -n accordarLce with law.

¶57

In these circumstances, after hearing le: rnecl counsei for the petitioners and the Assistant Governmenl pleader, and upon perusal of the materia_l available on r€( ord, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demer I s of the case of the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriarr to direct the petitioners to make a fresh detailed represerr ation afresh along with necessary documents to establish heir case to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 within a period of ei11 rt (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde r. On such rqpresentations being received respondent No 1 is directed

¶58

¶59

E^yl/,J H'.P.No.6J66 OF 2022

¶60

*Effi

¶61

issue notices to a,11 the parties concerned, provide sufhcient opportunity for submission of their explanations, examine the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

¶62

With the above direction, this present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶63

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶64

closed.

¶65

//TRUE COPYi/

¶66

SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (v/<

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,^{Stateof Telangana,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶70

The District Collector, Collector Office,^Khammam,

¶71

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam^District.

¶72

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Singareni,^{KhammamDistrict.}

¶73

The Secretary, Grampanchayath, Singareni^{Village and Mandal, Khammam} District.

¶74

One CC to SRI G. RAVI CHANDRA^{SEKHAR, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High^{Court for the State of Telangana.} tourl

¶76

B. Two CD Copies

¶77

BN TKS

/ t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710912025

ORDER

WP.No.6388 of 2022

.I i1t SIa
( <br>3 i1JANzo2b '
*
,:SprtlcHl)---

¶85

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶86

(y P
v<br><br>b z<br>

Madagani Satyanarayana and 6 others v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Madagani Satyanarayana and 6 others v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn Vs Sri. Vankara Ramesh

Mohammed Ismail (Died as per LRs PP2 to 8) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Annapurnamma Vs The State of Talangana and 4 others

Sri.Pasunuri Praveen Kumar , Praveen Reddy and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Smt. Jonnabhatla Indira Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Goruganti Danaiah and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others