Chamalla Satish Reddy vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 26.10.2026 issued by the 4th respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of a plot admeasuring 435 square yards, situated in the residential zone of S.C. Colony, Nemmani Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner has constructed a compound wall around the said plot to protect it from encroachment. While so, the 4^th respondent issued a notice dated 10.10.2026 directing the removal of the stones dumped in the drain/culvert situated in Vaddera Colony. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent issued the impugned notice alleging that the petitioner had failed to furnish the relevant documents sought under the earlier notice dated 10.10.2026 and, therefore, action would be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Telangana Gram Panchayat Act, 2018.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that no notice dated 10.10.2026, as alleged by the 4^th respondent, was ever served on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the notice dated 10.10.2026 merely called upon the petitioner to remove the boulders from the drain and did not require the petitioner to furnish any relevant documents, as alleged by the 4^th respondent. The 4th respondent, under the guise of issuing the impugned notice, is attempting to demolish the compound wall without following the due process of law. Therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice, without first issuing a proper notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing, is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents rightly issued the impugned notice and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject land without following the due process of law.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.