DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD Vs. GARLAPALLI JAGDESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dtd. 18/4/2017 passed in W.P.No.25934 of 2010.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred before this Court by the respondents/writ petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar in demolishing the compound wall and two rooms on the subject property. The petitioners stated that their father was the titleholder of the property to an extent of 3,764 square yards and a house bearing No.1/6/261/A/4 was constructed. Before the learned Single Judge, it was stated on an affidavit that proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, "the Act"), and a statement was filed under Sec. 6 of the Act, declaration was submitted and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer passed an order declaring the land as non-surplus land and holding that the petitioners are entitled to hold it. The State never objected to the order passed under the Act. Later on, an application was submitted for grant of permission for construction of a residential complex. It was sanctioned vide permit dtd. 1/1/2010. Subsequently, a revised building plan proposal was also submitted by the respondents/writ petitioners, which was also approved on 14/9/2010. The respondents/writ petitioners alleged that the Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, visited the subject premises and told the respondents/writ petitioners to stop the construction and directed them to submit the documents. All the documents were submitted to the Tahsildar. However, without issuing any notice, the Tahsildar, on 13/10/2010, came to the spot and demolished part of the compound wall and two rooms attached thereto. No order was passed in writing by the Tahsildar and the respondents/writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, came up before this Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:- "The point for consideration From the above contentions, the question that arises for consideration is "whether the respondents have any authority to interfere with the said land claimed by the petitioners?"

(3.) The consideration by the Court: