Smt Vadla Rajamani Banala ... vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6515 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                               W.P.No.43896 of 2022
ORDER

This Writ Petition is with the following prayer;

"to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of respondent No.2, in not acted upon the judgment in O.S.No.435 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendranagar dated 22-12-2016 including the representation dated 15-11-2022 to the effect, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially, direct respondent No.2 not to dispossess the petitioners from the petitioners open plot i.e., consisting of one room and bathroom with ACC sheets in Sy.No.74/A, admeasuring 325 sq.yds. or 271.7 sq.mtrs., situated at Sri Shiridi Sai Baba Colony, Bandlaguda Jagir Village and Bandlaguda Jagir Municipal Corporation, Gandipet Mandal (Previously Rajendrangar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, and to suspend the impugned notice by respondent No.2 vide Letter No.G1/3133/2022 dated 16-11-2022."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. Rameshwar Rao

submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of

property consisting of one room and bathroom with ACC sheets in

Sy.No.74/A, admeasuring 325 sq. yards or 271.7 sq. mtrs situated at

Sri Shiridi Sai Baba Colony, Bandlaguda Jagir village and Bandlaguda

Jagir Municipal Corporation, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

He submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is the pattadar and possessor of the agricultural

land in Sy.No.74 admeasuring Ac.19-38 gts situated at Bandlaguda

Jagir Village and thereafter, a layout permission was obtained from the

Gram Panchayat, Bandlaguda, and converted the same into residential 2 LK, J W.P.No.43896 of 2022

house plots to an extent of Ac.5-01 gts out of Ac.19-38 gts and most of

the plots were sold including the plots of members of the Sri Shiridi Sai

Baba Colony and some of the plots were retained. He submits that

when respondent Nos.4 to 7 belongs to respondent No.3 association

were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession, the petitioners

have filed O.S.No.435 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Rajendranagar, for injunction and the same was allowed vide

judgment and decree dated 22-12-2016 and they have been in

possession and enjoyment of the property. He submits that when

respondent No.2 Municipality, without any notice, is trying to dismantle

the room of petitioners and interfere with their possession, the

petitioners have made a representation dated 15-11-2022 to

respondent No.2 and the same was rejected vide proceedings

dated 16-11-2022 and thereafter, they have approached the civil Court

and filed O.S.No.698 of 2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Rajendranagar, for declaration of title and injunction. He

submits that in the light of the judgment of the Court below in

O.S.No.435 of 2009, the respondent Municipality cannot interfere with

the petitioners' possession.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. Abhay

Kumar Sagar submits that the subject property is earmarked as park

area and the petitioners have encroached upon the same. He submits

that the petitioners having instituted the suit against the respondent 3 LK, J W.P.No.43896 of 2022

Municipality seeking declaration of title, they cannot come up before

this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioners is that they are absolute owners and

possessors of the subject property and the case of the respondent

Municipality is that it is earmarked as park area and the petitioners

having aggrieved by the action of the respondent Municipality have

already filed O.S.No.698 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, seeking declaration of title. The petitioners

having instituted the suit cannot file this writ petition against the

respondent Municipality. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving

liberty to avail the remedy before the Court below. No order as to costs.

5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 6th December, 2022.

sj