A. Somaiah v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17036 of 2015 Between:

A.

Somaiah, s/o. Ramaswamy, aged: about 72 years Occ:Retired employee R/o.H.No.4-5-574, Kotbiguda, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana State. .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17036 of 2015

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TG) for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of 101 Square yards in Sy.No.57 Part, situated at Karmanghat Village, Padmavathinagar, New RTC Colony, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Old Hayatnagar Taluq. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said property by way of an agreement of sale dated 09.10.1980 from its original owner.

While so, on 13.06.2014, the respondents are trying to occupy the above said open land and trying to construct the building on the said land. The objection raised by the petitioner was not heeded to by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Except enclosing the alleged agreement of sale dated 09.10.1980 and some layout plan, no other material is shown in support of the contention of the petitioner on title of the said property and that it is a private property. No material is

also shown on the alleged interference by respondents 2 to 4 and taking up of construction. The petitioner has not raised any grievance with the competent authority explaining that he is the owner of the said property and that the Officers of GHMC are illegally interfering and trying to take possession of the private property. It is not clear whether there is any dispute regarding title. Thus, without availing appropriate remedy as available under law, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court alleging interference by respondents 2 to 4.

4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout his remedies as available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. _________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 16th June, 2015 sj