Sunday, 12, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kachakayala Mallesham vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 4402 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4402 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 December, 2023

Telangana High Court

Kachakayala Mallesham vs The State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2023

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T. Vinod Kumar

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                WRIT PETITION No.34669 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.3 & 6, more

particularly the 3rd respondent, in not considering the

representation submitted by the petitioner, dt.24.05.2023 and

09.10.2023, bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent the

unauthorized and illegal construction work being carried by

respondents No.7 & 8 in plot admeasuring 242 sq. yards in survey

No.537/A, 538/A, 540/A and 541/A situated at Karimnagar

Revenue Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District, forming part of

663 sq. yards situated in Laxminagar Locality near Old Power

House, Karimnagar Revenue Mandal, belonging to the petitioner,

as being illegal, arbitrary, oppose to principles of natural justice

and violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and in

abdication of powers conferred under the Telangana Municipalities

Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban

Development Department appearing on behalf of respondents No.1

& 4, Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondents No.3 & 5, learned Government Pleader for

Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, and with the

consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition

is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition

at the admission stage, and the lis involved in this Writ Petition,

this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents No.7

& 8 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. Petitioner contends that originally land in Survey Nos.537/A,

538/A, 540/A and 541/A situated at Karimnagar Revenue Village

of Karimnagar Mandal and District was jointly purchased by

petitioner's father and others; that the said land was partitioned

and on account of the settlement arrived at between the

petitioner's father and joint owners, the petitioner's father was

allotted plots bearing No.1, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 to 28; that the

petitioner's father had sold some of the said plots for meeting his

necessities; that, thereafter, the petitioner's father executed a Gift

Settlement Deed, dt.15.03.2015, in favour of the petitioner in

respect of plots bearing Nos.26 to 28 in all admeasuring 663 sq.

yards.; and thus, the petitioner has become the absolute owner

and is in possession of land admeasuring 663 sq. yards forming

part of survey No.537/A, 538/A, 540/A and 541/A situated at

Karimnagar Revenue Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

5. Petitioner further contends that the unofficial respondents

without obtaining any permission for construction have started

digging trenches in the aforementioned land of the petitioner,

whereupon the petitioner had approached the 3rd

respondent authority and submitted representation,dt.24.05.2023

and 09.10.2023 bringing to the notice of the said authority the

unauthorized and illegal construction made/being made by the

unofficial respondents; and that in spite of the petitioner submitted

the aforesaid representations, no action is taken. Hence, the Writ

Petition.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

the 3rd respondent has placed before this Court, written

instructions, dt.21.12.2023, under the signature of the

Commissioner of the 3rd respondent-Municipality. By the aforesaid

written instructions, it is stated that the 7th respondent had

initially obtained certificate of registration under Section 174(1) of

the Act on 29.12.2022 for construction of a building; and that

subsequently, the said certificate of registration obtained by the 7th

respondent was revoked.

7. Learned Standing Counsel by placing reliance on the

aforesaid written instructions further submits that there have been

disputes with regard to the subject property being claimed by the

petitioner; that the unofficial respondent No.8 had submitted a

copy of the judgment in a civil suit filed by the petitioner herein,

vide O.S.No.77 of 2009, wherein it has been held that the

petitioner, who had instituted the aforesaid suit is not entitled for

any relief, much less the equitable relief of injunction, and the suit

instituted by the petitioner has been dismissed; and that therefore,

the claim of the petitioner that the respondents No.7 and 8 have

encroached into his property and are digging trenches, without any

permission, cannot be looked into by the authorities.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Though the 3rd respondent, by the written instructions as

furnished to the learned Standing Counsel, has stated that initially

7th respondent had obtained the certificate of registration on

29.12.2022, for construction of a building under Section 174(1) of

the Act, and thereafter, the said certificate was revoked, the date

on which the said certificate of registration was revoked, is not

mentioned in the said written instructions.

10. Further, the 3rd respondent-authority, who is required to

ensure that no construction is made without obtaining any valid

permission from the said authority, by its written instructions,

speaks about the title dispute between the petitioner and the 8th

respondent, instead of informing the Court as to whether the

construction being made by the 8th respondent is by obtaining a

valid permission/sanction or otherwise.

11. This Court in K.Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad 1 (following the decision of another Division Bench of

this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector,

Hyderabad 2) had held that the authorities while granting building

permission cannot adjudicate title/boundary dispute and are

required to see prima facie title and possession. However, on

account of dismissal of the suit instituted by the petitioner would

not make the construction being carried out without obtaining

permission/sanction, a valid construction.

12. Thus, the action of the 3rd respondent in furnishing the

written instructions in the above manner without addressing the

issue concerned, in the considered view of this Court is highly

deplorable and cannot to be countenanced.

13. Further, the non-mention in the written instructions as to

the construction being made by respondents No.7 & 8 is under a

valid permission/sanction from the authorities concerned or

otherwise, in the considered view of this Court would only go to

show that the said construction is being made without any

2008(1) ALD 792

MANU/AP/0361/2001=2001(3) ALD 600

permission/sanction, requiring action to be initiated by the 3rd

respondent-authority.

14. Since the petitioner had submitted representation on

24.05.2023 and 09.10.2023 with regard to the alleged illegal

constructions being made by the unofficial respondents No.7 & 8

without any valid permission and that it is not shown to this Court

by the 3rd respondent that the said construction made by the

unofficial respondents No.7 & 8 is by obtaining any valid

permission/sanction from the authorities concerned under the

provisions of TS-bPASS Act, 2020 read with the Telangana

Municipalities Act, 2019, this Court is of the view that the 3rd

respondent-authority is to be directed to take necessary action

with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction

made/being made by the unofficial respondents No.7 & 8 by

considering the representations submitted by the petitioner as

noted above, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, by following due process of law.

15. Subject to the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed

of. No order as to costs.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the matter.

17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 27th December, 2023.

gra

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

Writ Petition No.34669 of 2023

Dt.27.12.2023

gra

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter