The State Of Telangana vs Akula Lalitha
2022 Latest Caselaw 4895 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4895 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2022

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Akula Lalitha on 26 September, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


              WRIT APPEAL No.625 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned

Government     Pleader         for      Revenue           appearing   for   the

appellants and Mr. Thalari Ravinder Rao, learned counsel

representing Ms. Porika Chandana, learned counsel for

respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the

interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated

30.08.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.34173 of 2022.

3. The related writ petition has been filed by respondent

No.1 to declare the action of appellant Nos.3 and 4 in

trying to install sign board on the property of respondent

No.1 stating that the said property belongs to Government

and thereby, obstructing respondent No.1 from carrying

out the construction as illegal.

4. Be it stated that the construction is being carried out

at house property bearing H.No.1-7-500/5 admeasuring

250 sq.yds situated at Harinagar, Zamisthanpur,

Hyderabad. Along with the writ petition, respondent No.1

also filed an interlocutory application to restrain appellants

No.3 and 4 from dispossessing respondent No.1 from the

said house property.

5. Learned Single Judge on due consideration passed

the following order on 30.08.2022:

"A perusal of the material on record shows that the petitioner along with two others purchased the subject property together with the existing house under a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2013 vide document No.2234 of 2013 in respect of house bearing Municipal No.1-7-500/5 admeasuring 250 sq. yards situated at Harinagar, Zamistanpur Hyderabad. Thereafter, the subject land is released by other two purchasers in the name of the petitioner by a registered release deed dated 19.01.2018 and thereafter the petitioner claims to have demolished the existing house for

making construction of a new house after obtaining permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vide permit No.3/C15/10249/2021, dated 27.11.2021. At this stage, the respondents claimed to have stopped the construction work and erected a Board indicating that the subject property belongs to the Government. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the entire land in T.S.No.56 admeasuring 16642 sq. meters is a Government land and the respondent authorities in their routine inspection, having noticed that the construction is being made on the Government land adjacent to the Government land bank parcel, erected a board and stopped the construction work.

Prima facie, a perusal of the material on record shows that the petitioner along with two others purchased the existing house which is already assessed municipal tax and also assigned house number. The petitioner, having acquired the subject property through a release deed, demolished the existing house and after obtaining permission from the GHMC authorities, is proceeding with construction in question and she has been in possession of the subject property. In these circumstances, if the respondents have any

objection or right or claim over the subject property, it is for the respondents to initiate action accordance with law, but the action of the respondents in stopping the construction activity or erecting a board stating that the subject land belongs to the Government is not sustainable.

In these circumstances, pending further orders, there shall be interim direction, as prayed for. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondents from taking any action in accordance with law."

6. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that learned

Single Judge has injuncted appellants No.3 and 4 from

dispossessing respondent No.1 from the subject property.

The writ petition is pending. It is open to the appellants to

contest the writ petition as well as to seek modification of

the aforesaid order. At this stage, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge. However, we make it clear that we have not

expressed any opinion on merits and all contentions are

kept open.

7. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall