Dappu Yellam Vs The State of Telangna

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

\

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

WRIT PETITION : 3164 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dappu Yellam, S/o Rajaiah, Aged about !2^{yeq1s,Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No} 5-3, .shankarampet village And [Vandal, fvledak District.

¶10

2 Dappu Yashoda, W/o Yellam, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture^R/o H.No. 5-3, Shankarampet village And Mandal, Medak District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangna, Rep.by its^{Principal Secretary, Department of} Panchayath Raj and Rural Development^{SecretariatHyderabad}

¶14

The District Collector^(Panchayath Wing),^{tvledakdistrict.Medak.}

¶15

The District Panchayath officer,^{fi/edak districtMedak.}

¶16

The Mandal Parishat Development^{Officer, Shankarampet(R)l/andal,Medak} district.

¶17

The Shankarampet^(R) Gram Panchayat,^{Rep.by its PanchayathSecretary,} Shankarampet(R) village and Mandal^{Medak district.}

¶18

The tMandal Panchayath^{Officer, Shankarampet (R)Mandal,Medakdistrict.}

¶19

The Tahasildar, Shankarampet(R)^{Mandal,,Medak district.}

¶20

B. Dappu Narsaiah, S/o Rajaiah,^{Aged abgut 5Q years Occ.Agriculture} Shahkarampet^(R) village And Mandal,^{Medak district}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring^{the action of the Respondents2 to 7 in not} taking any action or stopping the^{illegal constructionactuates by respondent No.8}

¶23

).

¶24

with the collusion of the Sth respondent and continued the construction activity day in and day oul admeasuring 60 Sq.Yards in the H.No. 1-3t4OtB Assessment TplN Sankarampet ,iR) village and fi/andal, Medak district is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article, 14, 1t), and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia besides in violation of Telangana State Panchayath Raj Act and rules made there under, consequenly direct the respondents 2 to 7 to demolish the illegal, unauthorized constructions raised by the respondent No. 8 on the above stated property.

¶25

lA NO: 1 oF 2026

¶26

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil':d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 16-7-2025, 19-1 -2o2G, 19-1-2026, 9-6-2ozs, 2-t-202s, 31-12-2025 by stopping the illegal construction activity admeasuring 60 Sq.Yards in the H.No. 1- 3l40lB Asses:;ment TPIN Sankarampet @ village and Mandal, Medak district pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^p. PADMA RAO

¶28

counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI p. ASHOK KUMAR, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶29

counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6: sRl RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, FoR S;RI K. PRADEEP REDDY, S.C. FOR GRAMAPANCHAYAT

¶30

Counse! fortfre $e_spolggT! No.z:.pRt SANpEE P GOUD, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No,8: --

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

,]

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO.316 4 bf 2c/26

¶36

Date: o,3.02.2o.26

¶37

Between:

¶38

Dappu Yellam ilnd ayry

¶39

..Petitionery

¶40

And

¶41

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and seven others Respondents

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This Writ Petition is liled seeking the following relief:-

¶44

"to issue a writ, order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of WRIT OF NIANDAMUS declaring the action^of the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in not taking any action^or stopping the illegal construction actuates^{by respondentNo.B} with the collusion of respondent No.S and continued^the construction activity day in and day out^{admeasuring60} Square Yards in the H.No.13l40lB Assessment^TPIN Sankarampet Revenue village and Mandai,^{Medak District, is} illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14,¹⁶ and^{300,{' of the} Constitution of India besides in violation^{of TetanganaState} Panchayath Raj Act and Rules made there^under consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 7 to^demolish the illegal unauthorized constructions^{raised bythe} responden t No. B on the above stated^property..."

¶45

2

¶46

EVV. J Wp_3 164_2026

¶47

Fleard Sri P.Padma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P.F shok Ktrmar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Panchayzrt Raj appearing for rcspcndent Nos. i to 3; Sri K.pradeep Reddy, iea:'ned Standing counsel appcaring for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri Sandeep Gouil, learned Assistant Government pleader for Rev:nue appearing for respondent No.7 and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶48

Learned counsel for thc petitioner would submit that the petitiorer and respondent No.8 are sons of late Rajaiah. The father of the lletitioner has got his share i.e., old house to an extent of 60 square yards bearing H.No. L-3-4olB, Assessment Tpllv Sankarampet Revenue village and Mandal, Medak District. Alter the death of the petitioner's father, clisputes arose between the legal heirs of late Rajaiah. Respondent No.g has filed a suit for permarrent injunction against the petitioner and others uide o.S.No.351 of 2025 and the said court has granted. ad inteim injunction in I.A.No.870 of 2o2s, dated 1g.L2.2025, restraining the petitiorLer and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enioyment of respondent No.8 herein over the subject property. I'he pel.itioner has filed a petition to vacate the said injunction order uide c F.R.No.46 of 2026. During pendencyof the said suit, taking

,

EVV. J Wp_3164_2026

3

i-)

advantage of the injunction order, respondent No.S has been making attempts to change the nature of the house property by raising construction. Therefore, the petitioner has made a detailed reJrresentation, dated 19.01.2026 to the respondenl authorities. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after receipt of the said representation, respondent authorities did not take any action. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶54

\

¶55

Learned Assistant Governmenl Pleader for Revenue would submit that the enquiry his already been initiated on the representation made by the petitioner and appropriate action would be taken during the course of time by following due process of law. Stating so, learned Assistant Government Pleader also seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶56

[n view of the above submissions and since the enquiry has already been initiated on the complaint/representation made by the petitioner and notices have also been issued to the concerned, this Court, without making any observations on the. merits and demerits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry by duly affording an opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned including respondent No.8 and pass appropriate orders strictly in

EVV. J Wp_3164_2rJ26

4

;:-.=)

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferabl_y within a periocl of 90 wcrking days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the notice is stated to be ordered to respondent i'io.8, issuance of furtirer llotice tc respondent No.S in this writ petition shal.l stand dispensed with.

¶61