Nageshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-21. Nageshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
1321e1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 26816 OF 2024 Between: Nageshwar Rao, Sio Sammaiah, ASq. 5. 0,Occ. Business' Rlio H. No. 5-81' Padra Village, Govindaraopet Mandal, Mulugu District, Telangana State .. ,PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchay-at Raj and Rural Developmerit Departmeht, Secretariat Building, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Mulugu, Mulugu District, Telangana State. 4. The Divisional Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Mulugu District, Telangana State. 5. The Gram Panchayat Pasra, Represented by Panchayat Secretary' Govindaraopet Mandil, Mulugu District, Telangana State. 6.
Sri Yanala Anantha Reddv, S/o Laxma Reddy Age 63 years Occ Business Rl/o H No. 5-80 Pasra [,{agaram Village Govindaraopet Mandal Mulugu District. 7. Sri Sagaraboyina Saraiah, S/o S Sammaiah Aged 65, years. Occ Fruit Shop R/o H fto 580-Pasra Nagaram Village Govindaraopet Mandal Mulugu District ' 8. Sri Thiparthi Brahmachari, S/o Gopaiah Age 70 years Occ Gold Shop All are R/o H No 580 Pasra Nagaram Village Govindaraopet Mandal MulugU District ,.. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS or any other order or writ declaring the inaction of the respondents No.
2 to 5 in not considering the representation dated 0510212024 and 07 to2t2o24 given by the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Arl 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of lndia and the l)rinciples of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents No. 3 ar I 5 to demolish the illegal encroachment upon petitioner's property and which i; also obstructing the road from Pasra to Karlapalli and also to compensate the pe titioner for acquiring the land for road widening under land acquisition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou r may be pleased to direct the respondents no: 3 and 5 to demolish the house br: rring no.
5-80 which is illegal and unauthorized encroachment by unofficial re spondent upon the petitioner's property which obstructing the road from Pasre :o Karlapallisituated at Pasra Village and Gram Panchayat, Govindaraopet Marr lal, Ir/ulugu District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JALAPALLI MADHAVI REDII / Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAyT\ I RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: GP FOR ROADS & BUTLC INGS Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDy, SC FOR ZPTC Counsel forthe Respondent No. 6 to 8: SRI K. BUCHI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER 1,1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No. 26816 OF 2o24 DATE: 2L. OL. 2O26 Between: Nageshwar Rao ...
Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by it's Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Building, TS Secretaria, Hyderabad & 2 others ... Respondents ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in not considering his representation, dated 05. O2. 2024 and 07. O2. 2024, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently seeks a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to demolish the illegal encroachment upon the petitioner's property and to pass such other order or orders rr ; this Court may deem fit 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitiorr r the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rtr al Development appearing for respondents Nos. l to 3, the lea- ted Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for r :spondent No. 4, Iearned Stalding Counsel for ZYTC appearing fol respondent No. 5 and Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel appeari . 3 for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 3.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitr< ner's father had constructed a house with permission from the ]ram Panchayat dated 01. 03. 1989, leaving a setback of 55 fet:. on the side of Hanamkonda to Etunrnagaram Road and left a s:tback of 33 feet on the side of Pasra to Karlapalli Road. It is subrr itted that within the 33 feet setback, one lady from Madras harl erected a small temporary structure and was residing thereirL and when the petitioner's father raised objections, she three 1 :ned to commit suicide if she was disturbed. The Gram Par r hayat also had assigned a house number. It is further sutr nitted that she subsequently construpted three rooms and late r passed away. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to remove the illegal structure, but no action was taken by the authorities and 'therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. 4. Notices have been served on the unofficial respondents.
However, no counter afhdavit has been filed by them till date. The official respondents have filed a counter aJfidavit stating that the structure raised within the 33 feet setback of the petitioner's property is unauthorized and is obstructing the free flow of traffic, thereby causing inconvenience to commuters. It is stated that the notices for removal of the said structure were issued to the unofficial respondents on 18. 01. 2023, but no explanation has been given by them till date. Since no counter affidavit was frled by the unofficial respondents and in view of the photographs obtained from Google Maps filed by the petitioners, which shows that the subject construction is obstructing the road, respondent , I Nos. 3 to 5 are directed to take action against the said construction in accordance with law. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. S and 6 requested for liberty to make representation to the respondent authorities. Liberty is accordingly given. x 5.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed ::. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in t ris Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ]. SD/. PONNA KRISHNA ASSI;TANT REGISTRAR ,t. \---- *7 //TRUE copytt / $ecrroru oFFtcER To, 1. The Principar secretary, panchayat Raj and Rurar Dbve opment Department, Secretariat Buitding, TS Secretariai, Hta;iJ;;, SirIJ;l i6i;il; 2 The District coilector (panchayat wing), sangareddy, sz ngareddy District. 3' The District Panchayat -officer, Murugu, Murugu District, erangana state. 4. The"Divisional Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Mulullr District, Telangana 5 The Panchavat Secretary, panchayat Gram I srivirs'v! pasra, I Gc rindaraopet Mandar, Mulugu District, Telangin'a'Siate. 6. One CC to SRt JALAPALLI MADHAVT REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 7. One CC to SRt K. BUCHI BABU, Advocate [OpUC] 8. One CC to SRt K. PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR ZPTC [Ot UC] 9. TWO CCS tO GP FOR.
PANCHAYAT RAJ '- RURAL ' '-' DE\/ High COUrt fOr thE State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]- 10. Two CCs to cp FOR & BU|LD|NGS, F-OjLS High Crr urt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies BSR P HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112026 Sri r1 ( ORDER c WP. No. 26816 of 2024 2026 ? 3t',rqN (,) \ . q*,, \y,r:i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ? ,,t \ go
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.