Telangana High Court
Dachepally Narender vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 4235 OF 2025
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus to declare the notices Nos.GP/08/2025 dated
20.01.2025 and GP/10/2025 dated 27.01.2025 issued by the
respondent No.6 for removal of structures in Plot Nos.126,
125/A in Survey No.162/A, situated at Indresham village,
Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, bounded by North-
Plot No.94, South- Plot No.92, East- Plot No.100, West-30 feet
wide road as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of
Grampanchayath Act and Rules and consequently to set aside
the same and to pass other order or orders in the interest of
justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and
possessor of open Plot No.93, B-Block in Survey No.161/1,
extent of 200 Sq.yards, situated at Royal Estate, Indresham
Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the said plot
was bounded by North- Plot No.94, South- Plot No.92, East- Plot
No.100, West-30 feet wide road. The petitioner claims to have
purchased the same from one K.Bheem Rao, S/o.K.Balaiah for a
valid sale consideration through a registered
Doc.No.22131/2013, dated 30.12.2013 and his pre-predecessor
K.Bheem Rao, i.e., petitioner's vendor, had purchased the said
open plot from one B.Srishailam, S/o.B.Shivaiah, through a
registered sale deed Doc.no.29801/2006, dated 30.11.2006,
who had purchased the same from one M.Rajakumar,
S/o.Subba Rao, through a registered sale deed
Doc.No.19633/2005, dated 20.12.2005. It is stated that the Raj
Kumar had purchased the said plot from one Dr.Batchu
Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Batchu Venkata Ramaiah, through a
registered sale deed Doc.No.5377/2004, dated 24.03.2004 and
the Said Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, had purchased from one
T.Ajit Singh, S/o.Late T.Jairaj Singh through registered sale
deed Doc.No.2405 of 1993, dated 03.08.1993. Thus, it can be
seen that there has been several transactions in respect of the
said plot and the petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the said plot ever since from the date of
purchase. It is stated that after mobilizing of the funds for
construction of a house, the petitioner had approached the
respondent No.6 for permission for construction and the
respondent No.6 has granted the permission vide
Sl.No.50/GP/2022, dated 22.03.2022. Subsequent to the
construction being done, the house number was also allotted by
the respondent No.6 and the petitioner claims to be paying the
property tax, electricity charges, etc. It is alleged that when the
respondent No.7 tried to grab the plot of the petitioner, the
petitioner has made a complaint before the Patancheru Police
Station and the Police registered a case in Crime No.403 of
2024, under Sections 448, 427 of IPC and same is pending
consideration. It is further alleged that the respondent No.7 and
one Madagoni Chakradhar Goud have created fake and bogus
documents and have filed W.P.No.30931 of 2024 for taking
action against construction being carried out by the writ
petitioner by alleging that it was illegal and unauthorized and
the same was disposed of at the admission stage by this Court
directing the respondents No.5 and 6 to take appropriate action
for removal of the unauthorized constructions, after issuing
notice to respondent No.7 therein in accordance with law and
accordingly, the impugned notices have been issued to the
petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the said notices have not been served on the petitioner, but
have been pasted on the wall of the property of the petitioner
and therefore, it cannot be considered as service of notice.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in the original layout, the Plot of the petitioner is
numbered as Plot No.93 and subsequently, another layout has
been brought in showing the said Plot as Plot No.126 and the
unofficial respondents are trying to interfere with the possession
of the petitioner over the subject land under the garb of the
second layout.
4. At the time of hearing, basing on the arguments
advanced on 01.05.2025, this Court had appointed Advocate
Commissioner to visit the site i.e., Plot No.93 in Survey
No.162/1 and Plot No.126 in Survey No.162/A of Indresam
Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District on 06.05.2025
in the presence of both the parties and to take measurements of
the respective plots as per the respective sale deeds of the
parties and to submit a report before this Court on the next
date of hearing. The Advocate Commissioner has accordingly,
submitted a report on 09.06.2025.
5. The unofficial respondent No.7 also filed a counter
affidavit along with stay vacate petition on 27.03.2025 and the
official respondents have filed a counter affidavit on 23.06.2025,
supporting the stand of the unofficial respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating
the submissions made in the writ affidavit, submitted that the
unofficial respondents are claiming the property by virtue of the
ex-parte decree in O.S.No.37/2008. It is submitted that the
defendant in the said suit was a dead person and in proof
thereof, he has filed a copy of the original death certificate,
which shows that Kishan Lal, S/o.Brij Mohan Lal, died in the
year 1998. It is submitted that O.S.No.37/2008 was thus filed
against the deceased person and an ex-parte decree was
obtained, on the basis of which the respondents are trying to
prove their possession over the property. Therefore, according to
him the title of the respondents is not proved.
7. As regards the Advocate Commissioner's report, the
learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the same, stating
that it is biased and one-sided and that the Advocate
Commissioner has not considered the submissions of the
petitioner or the documents submitted by the petitioner for
making the measurements and therefore, the said report cannot
be considered.
8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents,
however, submitted that they have purchased the property
through an agreement of sale and have approached Civil Court
for a decree and the Civil Court has held in favour of the
unofficial respondents, against which the writ petitioner has
filed the appeal and the same has also been dismissed. He
submitted that the writ petitioner has not disclosed any of these
facts in the writ petition and therefore, he has not come to the
Court with clean hands and therefore, he does not deserve any
relief in the matter. He further submitted that there is only one
layout and the respondents No.7 and 8 are the owners of the
Plot Nos.125 and 126 and it is the writ petitioner who is trying
to grab their property. He further submitted that Plot No.93 is
allegedly measuring 200 sq.yards, whereas Plot Nos.125 and
126 are measuring only 155.55 sq.yards each and the Advocate
Commissioner's report clearly proves that the two plots of 155
sq.yards each, are on site. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the
writ petition with costs.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the identity of the plot
in question is the issue before this Court. In order to verify the
same, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to
measure the extent of land available on site along with
boundaries mentioned in respect of sale deeds. The Advocate
Commissioner's report is infact, in favour of the unofficial
respondents. However, it is noticed that the petitioner is
claiming ownership of the plot through registered sale deeds,
whereas the unofficial respondents are referring to an
agreement of sale and a suit for specific performance which has
been filed allegedly against a dead person and an ex-parte
decree has been obtained. It is another issue that the said ex-
parte decree has been confirmed in the first appeal and the
petitioner has filed a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree.
When compared, both the layouts appeared to be in Survey
No.162/1 and are bounded by the roads i.e., Dhoulathabadhu
road and Rameswaram Banda road and the position of Plot
Nos.93 and 126 also appear to be the same. The second layout
appeared to be signed by the Panchayat Secretary on
30.04.2007, whereas the first layout was signed by the
Sarpanch in the year 1987. The first document was executed in
favour of the pre-predecessor in the interest of the petitioner is
of 1993 by the GPA holder of Kishan Lal, S/o.Late Brij Mohan
Lal in favour of Dr.Batchu Ramesh Babu, in the year 1993 and
it is a registered document i.e., Doc.No.2405/1993. The second
document is also a registered document vide Doc.No.5377/2004
and the third document i.e., Doc.No.19633/2005 and
thereafter, the Doc.No.22131/2013. Therefore, the property has
been transferred in the name of the petitioner herein by virtue of
the registered documents and the area is shown as 200
Sq.yards.
10. The respondents No.7 and 8 seem to have acquired
the property by virtue of the ex-parte judgment and decree in
O.S.No.37/2008. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2008
against one Kishan Lal and an ex-parte decree has been
obtained and Kishan Lal, as per the death certificate produced
by the petitioner, died in the year 1998 itself. If the same is
proved and the decree is set aside, the respondents No.7 and 8
would not get valid title in the property. The petitioner has
already filed a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the
copies of the same are also filed, as stated by the learned
counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8. Therefore, the
documents of the respondents No.7 and 8 are very much
dependent on the outcome of the suit filed by the writ petitioner.
The facts mentioned by the petitioner as well as the respondents
need verification. The respondent No.6 in its counter affidavit
had stated that it has followed due process of law and issued
notices dated 20.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 and thereafter,
demolished the illegal construction in compliance with the
orders of this Court in W.P.No.30931/2024. Therefore, it
appears that there is no structure in the site at present. This
Court therefore directs all the parties to maintain the Status-quo
as on today till the identity of the plot is established in the Civil
Court in the suit filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the
ex-parte decree in O.S.No.37/2008.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with
above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 23.07.2025
bak
