Madineni Venkaiah Naidu And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 446 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                    WRIT APPEAL No.43 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The appellants/petitioners are aggrieved by the status quo order

dated 31.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge on an interim

application moved by them in W.P.No.5032 of 2020 in respect of land

covered by plots No.6 (part), 7 (part), 8, 9 and 10 (part) situated at

Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

(earlier Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) till the next date of

hearing. Further, the appellants/petitioners were directed not to proceed

with the construction of structure on the subject land.

2.    Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners states that this is the

second round of litigation that his clients have had to initiate. Earlier

hereto, they had filed W.P.No.17337 of 2011 where the grievance raised

was of declaring the action of the respondents of demolishing their

compound wall on the same parcel of land as illegal and arbitrary. Vide

order dated 02.06.2016, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the

said petition by declaring the action of the respondents of demolishing

the compound wall of the appellants/petitioners as illegal and arbitrary

and further, restraining them from interfering or demolishing any further

compound wall or structures erected by the appellants on the subject

property. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners states that

despite the aforesaid order, the respondents have been interfering in

raising of the construction on the subject land, hence compelling them to

file W.P.No.5032 of 2020.

3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that though opportunities

were given to the respondents, they did not file their counter affidavit.

As a result, on 31.12.2020, when interim application was listed before

the learned Single Judge, upon perusing the records made available by

learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the status quo order was

passed.

4. We have enquired from learned Government Pleader as to

whether a counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition at least by

now, only to be told that more time may be granted to file the counter

affidavit. He states that if two weeks is granted, counter affidavit shall be

filed.

5. Last opportunity of three weeks is granted to the respondents to

file their counter affidavit with a copy to learned counsel for the

appellants, who may file rejoinders, if any, within three weeks thereafter.

6. As we are informed that there is no next date of hearing in the

captioned writ petition, the parties are directed to appear before the

learned Single Judge as per roster in W.P.No.5032 of 2020 on

26.03.2021. A request is made to the learned Single Judge to consider

fixing a convenient date for hearing arguments in the writ petition.

7. The present appeal is disposed of on the above terms along with

the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 16.02.2021 Lur