Kanneboina Ailaiah v. State Of Telangana
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 34er ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA ANO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1522 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preffered agianst the Order Dated 16-10-2025 in W.P.No 3987 of 2024 on lhe file of the High Court. Between:
1. Kanneboina Ailaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, Aged about 59 years, R/o. H. No.5-2613, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle, Hanamkonda District, Telangana - 5O5471
2. Kanneboina Purnachand, S/o. Kanneboina Ailaiah, Aged about 25 years, R/o. H. No. 5-2613, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle, Hanamkonda District, Telangana - 505471 ...APPELLANTS AND State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad Commisioner of Panchayat, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.
3. Joint Commisioner of Panchayat, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana
4. The Diskict Collector, I_lanamkonda District, Telangana
5. The District Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana
6. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Hanamkonda District, Telangana. 7.. Mandal Panchayat Officer, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District. Telangana.
8. Mandal Parishad Development Office, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District, Telangana
9. Gram Panchyat, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District. Telangana.
10. Panchyat Secretary, Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle lv lndal, Hanamkonda District. Telangana
11. Maddela Kumaraswamy, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Rasoolpa I Village, Bheemadevarpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda District. Telrl rgana ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ; cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co- t may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 16.10.2025 in WP No. 3987 of 2(': 4lo the limited extent of the direction issued to the Mandal Surveyor to condr t survey and fix the boundaries of the property of both parties as a pre-conl tion for taking action against the illegal construction undertaken by Responder No. 11 and thereby direct the Respondent No. 10 to immediately take action lor' rrds demolition of the illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No. 11 over :l e Subject Property, Counsel for the Appellants:SRl.
MOHAMMED OMER FAR( OQ Counsel for the Respondents No 1,2,3,5 To 8: SRI P. ASH( KKUMAR,AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAI. DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondents No9& 10: SRl. K. PRADEEF REDDY,SCFOR GRAM PANCI AYAT Counsel for the Respondent No 11 : SRI R.K.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE WSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR wA.NO.1522 0F 2025 DATE:31.12.2O25 Between:
Kanneboina Ailaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah and another.
Appellants And State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Secretadat, Hyderabad and 1O others.
Rcspondents Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel appearing for the appcllants Mr. P. Ashok Kumar, the learned Assistant Governrnent Pleadcr appearing lor the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, the learned Standing Counscl appeanrlg for the respondent Nos.9 and 10.
Ivlr. R K Chitta, leamed counsel appcaring for thc rcspondent No. I I JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justrce Moushumi Uhattacharyal 1.
The Writ Appeal arises out o[ an ordcr passeci b]. er learned Single Judge of this Court on i6.1O.2O25 in Writ Petition No.3987 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein.
2.
In the Writ Petition, the appcllants prayed for a Writ of lMandamus against the respondcnt No.lO/Panchayat Secretary, .\
Rasoolpally, Bheemadevarpalle Maldal, Hanarr koncla District, Telangana, in not taking any action, including for he demolition of the alleged illegal construction carried out b] the respondent nd situated i r-r No. 1 1/unofh<:ial respondent in respect of a i S1'.No.246 aL Rasoolpally Village (formerly V r llararn Village), Bheemade varpalle Mandal, Hanamkonda Distnc t Tclangana, in spite of sevr:ral complaints/ representations and rlso the official communications from the respondent No.5.
3.
81' the impugned order, the learned Singlt: .ludge rccordcd several facts, incluciing that the building permissi() L grantcd to thc rcspondcnt No.11 was subsequently cancelled b., l_he respondcnt No..-/thc DLstrict Panchayat Officer, Hananr oncla t)istrict, 1'clangana, and that the respondent No.10 shoutd - rn<:<. havc Lakcn ac t ion for the demolition ol the illegal construction . 4 .
Thc lcarned Single Judge also directed the IVLI rdal Survcyor to conduct a sutvey and fix the boundaries of the prc :rty ol bolh the parties, i.e., the u'rit petitioners/appellants and -he respondent No. 1 1, withir. a stipulated period ald hle a cor plizrnce report.
Thereafrer, tl-e respondent No. lO was directcd tt ta k<: action in
5. Tl're Survey accordance wr[h the directions of the respondent N< Authorities q,,:re also given the liberty to seek po.: :c assistance if required.
.) l
// J 5.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondent No.10 to take action regarding the alleged illegal construction, subject to the survey being conducted by the Mandal Surveyor as per the directions of the respondent No. 5. 6.
Counsel submits that both the actions should have been treated as independent obligations and that action against the illegal construction could not have been made dependcnt on the survcl, which was directed by the respondent No.5 to be conducted by the Mandal Surveyor.
7.
Learned counsel appearing lor thc respon(lcnt No. I 1/unoflicial respondent informs the Court thal- as ol yestcrdzry., thc survey has already been conducted and that nothing furthcr rcmains of the Writ Appeal.
8.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.l, 2, 3, 5 to 7 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9 and 1O submit that a cop]'of the Survey Report will be handed over to the appe[ants/writ petitioncrs without delay.
9.
Considering the fact that the survey has already bccn undertaken as directed by the learned Single Judge and that such direction was made at the request of the appellants/writ petitioncrs
who appeare(l in person before the learned Singl: Judge, we do not find any sc)pe to interfere with the impugned cr rer. At best, thc appellants/ petitioners shafl be given a copy of the I urvey Report. l0 We also note that the dispute is essentially c .a private naturc and arises bctween the appellants/writ petloners and [hc rcsponclent 'rkr. I 1. wherein the contesting parties e re clairning to bc thc ou'ncrs of thc land bearing the same sur\ :y number, i.c..
Sy.No.246 of Rasoolpally Village.
11. W.A.No. )i22 of 2025, alongwith all connect: I applications, rs accordingly clismissed as being without merit. Therc slt:rll be no order as to costs.
SdIA.V.S. PRASAD IEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ Advo: ,te [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ligh Court for the State of T elangana. [OUT]
3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the SL te of Telangana a[ Hyderabad [OUT]
4. OneCC to SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY, sc FoR GRAM PAN'I IAYAT, [oPUC]
5. One CC to SRI R.K. CHITTA , Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CD Copies DAN PMK b
HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 i i I ,
JUDGMENT
, I WA.No.1522 of 2025 : STA]E !
,a'
I 10i:B?0?6 C'
<) I t I * F.l DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS