Disposed

Sri Chintala Venkata Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025WP/9554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners holding registered title and a valid building permit sought mandamus against revenue authorities interfering with their house construction in Ameenpur, citing a status-quo order passed in a prior writ by the vendors. The court directed respondents to conduct an enquiry after notice and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Chintala Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[32e6 ]

¶3

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

¶4

I\4ONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL , TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 9554OF 2025}

¶8

Betwedn:

¶9

1 Sri Chintala Venkata Naravana, S/o Sri Chintala^{Venkata Subbaiah aged} about 53 years Occ Busineds R/o H No^{1-1-2118014,Hyder Nagar Near Kings} School Kukatpally Hyderabad.

¶10

p2 Sri Kanta Reddy Ashok Reddy, S/o Sri^{KantaReddyVenkataReddy-aged} about 57 year3 Occ Business R/o^Plot No 94^{[Vlaruthi HillsColony} Bandhamkohmu Road No 10 Ameenpur^{Village and Nilandal Sangareddy}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal^{Secretary RevenueDepartment} Secretariat Build ings Saifabad, Hyderabad-^50OO22.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Sangareddy, Sangareddy^{District,TelanganaState.}

¶15

3- The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, Telangana} State

¶16

The tvlandal Revenue Officer, Ameenpur,^{Ameenpur l\rlandal, Sangareddy} District, Telangana State.

¶17

The Ameenpur Municipality, Rep^{by its Commissioner,Ameenpurlr/andal,} Sangareddy District, Telangana^State-

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the} .High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT OF IV1ANDAMUS declaring the^{action of the Respondentsin interfering} with proposed house construction in^{spite there being a valid house permission} Vide Permit No 0103/BP/312112023^{dt 2210812023in the petitioner's house plot} to an extent of 878 Sq Yards in survey^{no 343/'10 situatedat AmeenpurVillage} and mandal, Sangareddy district^{showingthe Status Orderdated 02/0212023 in} wP No 2847 of 2023 is illegal,^{arbitraryand violation of principles of Natural}

¶20

¶21

Justice, apart from vio ation of Articles 14 86300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequerl[ly direct tlr.a respondents not to interfere with proposed house constructioh Vide Pern it No 0103/BP/312112023 dt 2210812023 in th,r petitioner's house plot to an extr)1t of B7B Sq Yards in survey no 343/1 C situated at Ameenpur Village and mandal, Sangareddy district showing the litatus Order dated O2lO2l2O23 in W⁾ No 2847 ot 2023.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstitnces stated in the affidavit filed in^r;r.rpport of the petition, the High Court may b,: pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with proposed house conslruction Vide Permit No: 0103/BP/3.1 2112023 dt:.221O812023 in the petitioner's house plot to an exteht of 878 Sq Yarcs; rn survey no: 343/'10 situated at Ameenpur Village & mandal, Sangareddy d strict showing the Status Order dated: 02102'2023 in WP No: 2847 of 2023, pencirg disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitio rer: SRI RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR R EDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respo-tdent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY,

¶27

SC FOR MCPL

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE fiRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶30

UIRIT PETITION No.955^{4 of 2o25}

¶31

oRDER:

¶32

This Writ^{Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of} India,^{is hledseekingthe following relief:}

¶33

". ..to issue^{an Zppropriatewrit, order or direction;more}

¶34

partianlarlg one^{in the natureof urit of Mandamus:}

¶35

a) bg^{declaingthe oction of Respondentsin interfeingtuith} proposed^{house constntctionin spite there being o ualid} house^{permission uide pennit No-)103/BP/3121/2023'}

¶36

dateti 22.08.2O23^{in the petitioners'house plot to an extent} of 8787^{square' gords inSy'No 343/ 10 situatedot} Ameenpur^{Villageond Mandal, SangareddgDistict'} shouing^{thestatus-quo ord'er dated 02'02'2023 in} W.P.No.2847^{of 2023 is illegal,arbitraryand uiolationof}

¶37

fundamental^{rights under Articles14 and 3O0A of} Constitution^{of India: and}

¶38

b) consequentlg^{direct the officiat respondents not to interfere} uith the^{proposedhouse constructionor pass such other} order or ord.ers^{as this Court deems} fit^{and pioper in the} circumstances of^{the case..."}

¶39

The case of the^{petitioners is that they are the ownersand} possessors of the open land^{admeasuring878 square yards in} Sy.No.343/ 10 situated at Ameenpur^{Villageand Mandal, Sangareddy} 'District, *ithin the limits of Ameenpur Municipality, having

¶40

.: ',4:: a

¶41

¶42

purchased thr) same under the registered sale de:d bearing Document No..l'1358 of 2021, dated 30.09.2O21. It is fur ther stated that the vendor of the petitioners and their predecessors have purchased the subject property under the registered sale deeds. It is also stated tha after purchasing the subject prolcrty, the petitioners have obtaine d necessary building permission for cons truction of residerrtial bu lding vide permit No.O1O3/BPI 3721 12023, dated 22.08.2023.

¶43

It is thc lurther case of the petitioners that ,"r,hile they rvere proceeding wit'r the construction work, respondent Nc s.3 and 4 startcd interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyrnent of the petrtioners over :he subject property and also the constru,:tion work. On questior-ring;, the respondents informed them that [here is a Status-quo order dated 02.O2.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2847 cf 2023, which was fiied by the vendor of the petitioners regarding boundary disputes between the vcrdor of the petitioners and ISPF land in Sy.No.343/ iO.

¶44

Thc grievrrnce of the petitioners is that although rhey are not parties to W.P.11,r.2847 of 2023 and the vendor of the pe itioners is now no way⁽ )()ncerned with the subject property, t -re ofhcial respondents arr. frequently interfering with the construc,_ion work. Therefore, they rysls constrained to fi1e the present Wrjt pe jition.

¶45

¶46

¶47

Considered the submissions^{oflearned counsel forthe} petitioner, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Revenue for} respondent Nos. I to 4 and^{Mr.PuttaKrishna Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel for^{respondentNo.5 and perused the record'}

¶48

¶49

Learned counsel for^{the petitionersvehemently contendedthat} the petitioners^{have purchased the subject property under registered} sale deed bearing^{documentNo.40358of 2021, dated 30 09 '2021} and that their^{vendor and their predecessorshave purchased the} subject property under^{the registered sale deeds Learned counsel} further submits that^{the petitionershave obtainedbuilding} permission for construction^{of residential building videpermit} No. O 1 03 / BPl³ l2l I^{2023,dated 22.08.2023 and proceeding with the} construction work

¶50

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for Revenueappearlng} for the respondents^{submitsthat there is a dispute with regardto the} identification and^{localisationofsubject land forming part of} Sy.No.343/^{1O and the same is abutting to the Governmentland' It is} also submitted that^{the subject land was assigned to the vendor's} vendor of the petitioners^{as such their vendors are not entitledfor} alienation or transfer^{of the land in favour of the petitioners as such} the petitioners^{are not having any valid document or rightto proceed} with the construction.

¶51

¶52

¶53

Since it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents without issr,rinll any notice interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner i over the subject property ar-rd also u,ith the construction a <:tivity, the ends of justice would be r net, if the respondents ar e directed to conduct an enquiry; in accor dance with 1aw, by issuinll notice to the petitioners and after cons idering the objections beirrll submitted by the petitioners. If the r.:spondents found any part of the subject land being form part of thc (.overnment land, thcy are z 1 liberty to take action, in accordance with law.

¶54

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of

¶55

As a seqrrel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, r'any, shall

¶56

stand closed. Nc order as to costs.

¶57

¶58

To,

¶59

SD/. P. PADMAI\IABHA REDDY DEPUT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -. 1 \I SEC].ION OFFICER

¶60

1 '^{The Principar} sit-'cretary Revenue_ D^e^p^artment secretariat BuirJings saifabad, Hyderabad. St;rte of Tdlangana- 500Cj22.-

¶61

2 . The District Co l,:ctor, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, Telanr lana State. 3 TheRevenue [)rvisl6nrg Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy Dis rict, Telangana

¶62

4 The fVandal Revenue Officer, Ameenpur, Ameenpur Mandirl, Sangareddy District, Telang,a na State.

¶63

5 rMunicipa litv, Ameenpur Mand rr, sangareddy

¶64

I[:|. 3i Ts:'"ux]:'bfl[:""0'r

¶65

One CC to SRt RAN/AVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REI)Dy, Advocate loPUCl

¶66

7 or:-T to SRI^trUrrA KRTSHNA REDDY, SC FoR MCPL [opuC]

¶67

B Iffi":r?:"1?"tii,FoR^{nevrruUE'High cou( for the stateo1 retanganaar}

¶68

Two CD Copies BSR GJP a A)

HIGH'COURT

DATED:07104i2025

ORDER

WP.No.9S54 of 2025

./, ., i€
i:.
,:)
<(r
J
c) Z
22 I{PR lffi
r)
,5
*
I
o5,sFrnT.lt g-v

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶75

WITHOUT COISTS

¶76

I
(r<br>

Sri Chintala Venkata Narayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Chintala Venkata Narayana v. The State of Telangana

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

Yanugu Veeranjaneya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sara Krishna Goud Vs State of Telangana

Smt. N. Lakshmi Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Kudumula Jayanthi Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Kotapati Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Chintala Venkata Kishore Vs The State of Telangana