Telangana High Court
P.Anil Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 31 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.123 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri V. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This Intra-Court appeal takes exception to the interim order dated 09.01.2025 in W.P.No.22904 of 2024. The said Writ Petition is still pending.
4. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the predecessor in title of the appellant filed W.P.No.24964 of 2012, which came to be decided on 02.08.2022. The impugned order therein was set aside. The appellant is occupying the same land and when he was threatened by respondent No.3 for demolishing the construction over the said land, he filed the instant writ petition. Initially, learned Single Judge on 21.08.2024 granted an ad interim protection to the appellant which was subsequently modified. Even if the said interim protection was not expressly extended, it shall be deemed to be extended in view of the Circular 2 issued by the High Court. Since such interim protection was in vogue, the demolition by the official respondents during the subsistence of such interim order is contemptuous in nature and runs contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court. It is submitted that in clear breach of the interim order of learned Single Judge, the demolition had taken place which is bad in law.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.
6. The impugned interim order shows that the matter was directed to be listed on 13.02.2025 by learned Single Judge and parties were directed to maintain status quo. Even assuming that the demolition had taken place, contrary to the interim order, the impact of the same needs to be assessed by the learned Single Judge. It is in the province of the learned Single Judge to decide whether the demolition had taken place while interim order was subsisting. If yes, necessary and consequential relief may be granted while deciding the writ petition. At this stage, no relief is due to the appellant in this writ appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of by reserving liberty to the appellant to apprise the learned Single Judge about the nature of illegality in demolishing the construction of the appellant. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. 3
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ ____________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 31.01.2025 Myk/Tsr