Dismissed

Nampally Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026WP/11055/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition alleging illegal construction by respondents 5 and 6 blocking a public path. The Court examined the Advocate Commissioner's report, recordings, and pleadings, finding no evidence of the alleged path and no encroachment. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs was passed.

Nampally Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

l321e l

¶2

If{ THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION : 11055 OF 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nampally Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Nampally Ram Reddy, Aged About. 60 years, Rl/o. H.No.1 -290A, Gousukonda Village, Bhudhanpochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhonagiri District.

¶9

Nampally Suvarana, Wo. Janardhan Reddy, Aged About. 55 years, Rt/o. H.No.1-290A, Gousukonda Village, Bhudhanpochampally Mandal, YadadriBhonagiri District.

¶10

,...PETITIONERS

¶11

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Dr. E. R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhonagiri District, enonaliri.

¶14

The District Panchayat Officer, Yadadri-Bhonagiri District, Bhonagiri.

¶15

The Gousukonda Grampanchayath, Rep. by its Panchayath Secretary, Gousukonda Grampachayat, Bhudhanpochampally Mandal, YadadriBhonagiri District.

¶16

Pakiru alias Pakker Devendar Reddy, S/o. Pakiru alias Pakker Buchi Reddy, Aged About. 56 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.8-6-2O11F1144, Plot No. 44, Phase-2, FCI Colony, Vanasthalipuram. K.V. Ranga Reddy District-70.

¶17

Smt. Pakker Lavanya, Wo. Pakker Devendar Reddy, Aged About. 49 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.8-6-2011F1144, Plot,No. 44,Phase-2, FCI Colony, Vanasthalipuram. K.V. Ranga Reddy District-70.

¶18

...:.RESPONDENTS

¶19

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, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents No. 03 and 04, to prevent the Respondent No. 05 and 06 from making illegal construction for new house vide House bearing No.2-2J73, Situated at Gousukonda

¶20

¶21

Village/Gramakantam,^{Bhoodhan pochampallylvlandal,Yadadri-Bhonagiri District} b.y occupying^{th,a street/pathland illegally, which is in north side of the Petitioner's} residential house^{by blocking the street path, without obtaining any permission} from the concern^{authoritiesas illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of} natural^{justice ;and violative of Sec.SB of Telangana PanchayatRaj Act-2018} consequently,^{tlirect the RespondentsNo. 03 and 04 to takeimmediately} appropriate^{action on the applicationof the petitionerdated.2710312025 and} 0710412025.

¶22

l.A.Nojl^!E-202!

¶23

petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit^{filerl in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} direct Respondent^{No. 03 and 04 to expeditiouslyact upon the representations of} the^{petitioner dated .27-03-2025, and 07'04-2025 and to prevent the illegal} construction^{making by the RespondentsNo. 05 & 06 for a new house vide House} bearing No.2-2-t73,^{situated atGousukondavillage/Gramakantam,} Bhoodhanpochampally^{Mandal, Yadadri- BhonagiriDistrict by occupyingthe} street/path^{land illegally, which is in northside of the Petitioner's residentialhouse} by blocking^{the street path, without obtainingany permissionfrom the concern} authorities,^{pending disposal of the writ petition'}

¶24

|.A.NO:2 OF 2025

¶25

petition U rder Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit^{filerl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} Reject the Advocate^{commissioner's Reportdated11.11.2025as contrary to} record and Appoint^{a fresh Advocate Commissioneror in the alternative, direct} the Mandal^{surveyor to conduct a proper survey of the subject Property/} Revenue Authorities^{with proper demarcationand preparation of site plan by} Directing that the^{commissionerconduct inspection in the presenceof a} Government^{surreyorand village elders,and file a fresh, impartialreport.}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Petitioners : SRI CH.VENKAT REDDY} Counselfor^{the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYATRAJ AND} RURAL DEVELO,PMENT

¶27

Counsel for the^{lRespondent No.4 : SRI K.PRADEEP KUMAR} counsel for the^{lRespondent Nos.S & 6 : M/s A.DIVYA GAYATHRI}

¶28

The Court made^{the followingORDER}

¶29

.,'i{.

¶30

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAT)

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SM'I.. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO.IIO55 OF² 025

¶33

DATED : og .01.2026

¶34

Between:

¶35

Nampally Janardhan Reddy and^another

¶36

Petitioners

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad and 5 others

¶39

Respondents

¶40

ORDER

¶41

In this Writ Petition, the^petitioners are^{seeking a Writ of}

¶42

Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3^{and 4 in not preventing} respondents 5 and 6 frorn making illegal construction of^{new house vide} House No.2-2173, situated at Gousukonda^{Village/Gramakantam,} Bhoodhanpochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri^{Districtby occupying} th\ street/path tand on the Northern side of the^{petitioners' residential} \ house by blocking the street^{path, as i[[egal, arbitraryand violative of}

¶43

W.P.No.t 1055 of 2025

¶44

¶45

Section 58 of the Terangana panchayat Raj Act, 2otg and consequentry to direcr respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate appropriate action on the rrpprication.f the petitioners dt.27.03.2025 and 07.04.2025 and ro pass such oth:r order or orders.

¶46

2' Brief fhcts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the ,etitioners craim to be owners and residents of House No. r _ 290A, G:usukonda v,rage, Bhudhanpochampa,y Mandar, yacJadri_ Bhongiri District. It is submitted thar on the Northern side o{- the petitionersr' house there is a street/path and respondents 5 and 6 are occupying the same and are making iilegar construction of a new house vide.I{ouse No.2-2/73 without obtaining any permission from the concemed authorities. Therefore, the petitioners claim to have submitted representations on 27.03.2025,29.03.2025 and 07.04.2025 to take action against the illegar construction. However, since no action has been taken, the ,resent writ petition has been fired. Annexed to the writ Petition are the representations of petitioner No.l and his wife petitioner No.2 and akro the photographs to demonstrate that there is brockage of thepathinfrontofthehouseofthepetitioners.

¶47

W.P.No.l 1055 of 2025

¶48

¶49

Vide orders dt.24.04.2025, this Court had directed respondents⁵ and 6 not to make any further construction without obtaining^permission from the authorities.

¶50

At the request of the leamed counsel for the^{petitioners,on} 28.10.2025, an Advocate Commissioner^was appointed to^visitthe subject site with notice to both parties and to take^measurements of^the property of respondents 5 and 6 and also to verify whether^{therewas any} path behind the property of respondents 5 and 6 as alleged by^the petitioners and to take photographs thereof and file the same along^with the report. The Advocate Commissioner has filed^{her reporton} 12.11,,2025 and the same is taken on record

¶51

Respondent No.3 in her counter affidavit has stated^{that as per the} records, respondents 5 and 6 are the owners of HouseNo.2-2173^situated at Gousukonda Village and that the^petitioners' house^{is opposite to the} house of respondents 5 and 6. It is^{statedthat there is no record to show} that there is any road as alleged by^{the petitioners and respondents5 and} 6 have demolished their old house and^{have commencednew} construction for which they have also^{made application for building}

¶52

W.P.No.l1055 of 2025

¶53

¶54

permissi,ln. It is stated that the petitioners have not produced any documents except for giving representation dt.27.03.2025 to show that there is a road as alleged.

¶55

Petitioner No.l filed reply affidavit stating that there is parh/srreet before th: ho,se of the petitioners to g. to Gram panchayat office of Gousuko.da fbr convenience of the village people since long back and that the silrle is evident from GPS/Google map. It is further stated that the building permission application of respondents 5 and 6 has been rcjected by the Panchayat Secretary atter proper verification of the revision rt:cords of Gousukonda Gram panchayat and further that the neighbouni of the petitioners, who are residents of the village for a long period, have also given their affidavits about the existence of street/path.

¶56

7 ' Resp'ondent No.4 also has filed counter affidavit reiterating the stand of rc:spondent No.3 and the petitioner has filed reply affidavit thereto.

¶57

Resp,rndents 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit along with copies of sale deeds dt.29.03.2025 and rectification deed dt.0g.04.202s and encumt'rilt'lce certificate dt.04.04.2025 and also the screen shot of

¶58

W.P.No. tt055 of 2025

¶59

¶60

the online permission application. It is submitted that respondents 5 and 6 are making construction strictly in accordance with the plan submitted to the authorities for building permission and there is no path as alleged by the petitioners in front of the petitioners' house.

¶61

Petitioner No.l has filed reply affidavit along with photographs to dernonstrate that there existed a path in front of the petitioners, house.

¶62

The Advocate Commissioner has submitted the report stating that the path in question does not appear to be a formally demarcated public road as per the available Panchayat records and that there exists no pathway on the Eastern side of the property as alleged by the petitioners and th.at the boundaries, measurements and construction are consistent with the property documents and do not encroach upon any public or neighbouring land. It is also stated that the basement in the property of respondents 5 and 6 has been constructed within their demarcated land as verified by measurements and documents. Along with the report, the Advocate commissioner has also filed copies of photographs and it is noticed that there is already a path in front of the house of the petitioners and the path alleged by the petitioners is not the only way for the ingress and'egress of the petitioners.

W.P.No.ll055 of 2025

The l" petitioner has filed objections to the Advocate Cornmissioner report and he has also filed photographs.

¶68

I litving regard to the rival contentions and the material on record and also the Advocate Commissioner's Report as well as the photographs filed by the Advocate Commissioner as well as by the petitioners with the reply affidavit, it is noticed that there is a rvay in f,ront of the petitioners' house and across the path is the property of respondetrts 5 and 6 and respondents 5 and 6 aremaking construction in accordanc:e with the plan submitted by them to the Gram panchayat and there is no occupation of any path by respondents 5 and 6. Admittedly, there is nc, road or street or path as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, this Courl docs not find any reason to interfere with the construction being rnade by respondents 5 and 6 except to direct them to make the construction after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court to establish the existence of the path, if they so"choose.

¶69

The writ Petition is accordingry dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶70

W.P.No.ll055 of 2025

¶71

¶72

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petitiop shall

¶73

also stand disrnissed.

¶74

//TRUE COPYII

¶75

SD/. K. BHAVANI ASSISTANT

¶76

¶77

¶78

Two CCs to Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RU Court for the State of Telangana 2. One CC to SRt CH .VENKAT RE 3. One CC to tM/s A DIVYA GAYATHRI , Advocate OPUC 4. One CG to SRI K. PRADEEP KUMAR, Advocate (oPUC)) 5. Two cb Copies

¶79

CTION OFFICER OPMENT, High

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/01 12026

ORDER

t
,tt \T SIA
()i ?t JA}l 202[
t

¶85

WP.No.111055 of 2025

¶86

DISMISSII{G THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶87

@
';b
Ll It <br>

Nampally Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nampally Janardhan Reddy 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

M/s. Sri Nagulamma Thalli Mahila Tribal Sand Quarry Labour Contract Mutually Aided Cooperative soci Vs The State of Telangana

Neelam Shankaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sri Datta Traders, Vs The State of Telangana

Yernnam Venkata Rami Reddy Vs Karri Neelavathi

Anamchinni Venktata Ramana Vs The Tahsildar

M/s New Era Educational Society Vs Smt. v. Saraswathi