[ 3304 ] IN THE HIGH OOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18808 OF 2026 Between: Nanaboina Komala, Wo. Rajaram Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Daily wage, R/o. Nallabelli Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ...PETITIONER AND 'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat building, Hyderabad 2. The Engineer in Chief, (O and M ) Operation and Maintenance lrrigation projects, Telangana Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Project Director, Sri Ram Sagar Project ( SRSP) Warangal, Warangal District. 4. The District collector, Warangal, Warangal district. 5. The Superintendent Engineer lrrigation Department, Warangal, Warangal District 6. The Divisional Engineer, Division -lll, Narsampet, Warangal District. 7. The Sub Engineer, Sub Division -ll, Nallabelly Nallabelly Mandal, Warangal District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District. 9. The Nallabelli Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Village Secretary Nallabelli Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 10.The Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Nallabelli Warangal 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioner house sites / houses and trying to dispossession / demolition without due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice, and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India particularly Right to life, Article 21 and contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere / demolition the petitioner from their respective properties residences without following due process of law without conducting survey without call for objections / clarification from the petitioners and pass LA. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere / demolition the petitioners from their respective properties residences without following due process of law without conducting survey without call for objections / clarification from the petitioners forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3 & 5 TO 7: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP REDDY, AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 10: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP The Court made the following: ORDER <,]ta=csy 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO DATE: 22.06.2026 WRIT PETITION No.l8808 ot 2026 Between: Nanaboina Komala ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and 9 others. ...Respondents ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief "...1o issue an appropiate Wi[ Order or Direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaing the action of the Respondents in intefieing with the peaceful possesslon and enjoyment of the Petitioner's house site/residential house and attempting fo dlspossess the Petitioner and demolish the existing structures without following due process of law, without conducting any suruey, and without issuing notice or affording an opportunity to submit objections, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the pinciples of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and - 2 enjoyment of the subiect propefty or undertake any demolition proceedings except in accordance with due process of law, and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.' Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner2. Heard Mr and Mr.Laxmalla Sandeep Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for lrrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record.

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has3. Learned counsel been residing in the 9th respondent village since decades and she has been dependent on agriculture and hereditary occupation for her livelihood. lt is contended that substantial portions of her lands and properties were acquired for the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) Stages ll and lll, leaving her dependent on the remaining residential properties held under registered sale deeds, petitioner further submits that, due to4. Learned counsel for the political rivalry, the respondent authorities initiated demolition proceedings without conducting a proper survey or enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice lE *?-. -- .1)'::-V 3 the counsel for the petitioner further submits that 5. Learned petitioner has already challenged the demolition notice in W.P. No' 1934 of 2026, which is pending, yet the authorities are attempting to proceed with demolition without following due process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no proper 6. show-cause notice or reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit her explanation and that the authorities acted arbitrarily and under external infl uence.

counsel for the petitioner further submits the petitioner's 7. Learned house was marked for demolition even before service of notice and that notices bearing different dates were served simultaneously, reflecting procedural irregularities. On these grounds, the impugned action is assailed as arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. learned Assistant Government Pleader 8. Per Contra, the appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that the impugned notice had already been duly served on the petitioner. He further contended that, despite service of the notice, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation or objection till date. Therefore, according to cannot the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner complain of violation of the principles of natural justice and are at liberty to submit her reply before the competent authority. !I 1

submissions made by the learned counsel 9. Having regard to the on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit her reply/explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Till such exercise is completed and orders are passed by the competent authority, the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the subject properties However, the petitioner shall not undertake any further construction or create any third-party rights in respect of the subject properties during the said period 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. T.SRIOEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, S""larirt building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. The Engineer in chief, (o and M ) operation and Maintenance rrrigation projects, Telangana Erramanzil Colony, panjagutta, Khairatabad, Hyderabai. 3 The Project Director, sri Ram Sagar project ( sRspi warangar, warangar District.

4. The District collector, Warangal, Warangal district. 5 The Superintendent Engineer rrrigation bepartment, warangal, Warangar District 6. The Divisional Enoineer, Division -lll, Narsampet, Warangalbistrict. :::- ' a' a;--:. :'Y T The sub Engineer, sub Division -il, Nailabeily Nailabefly Mandal, warangar District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Deveropment officer, Nailabeili Mandar, warangar District. 9. The vitlage secretary Naraberi viflage and Mandar, tlarabeiti c;";"Fril;;;i Warangal District. '1 0. The Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Nallabelli Warangal District. '1 1. One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate tO-pUCl 12.Two CCs to Gp FoR IRRI AND COMM AREA beV, Hign court for the state of .- Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 'r3'Two CCs to Gp FoR REVEN0E, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 14.One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR Mppzpp tOpUCl 15.Two CD Copies PSK, PSK /w, CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2210612026 -t STAl-€: c ? JUN 2028 o ? ORDER \,,1. WP.No.18808 OF 2026 'i\.:r7 \i- ti-: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS- ,b t1sy.

[ 3304 ] IN THE HIGH OOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18808 OF 2026 Between: Nanaboina Komala, Wo. Rajaram Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Daily wage, R/o. Nallabelli Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ...PETITIONER AND 'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat building, Hyderabad 2. The Engineer in Chief, (O and M ) Operation and Maintenance lrrigation projects, Telangana Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Project Director, Sri Ram Sagar Project ( SRSP) Warangal, Warangal District. 4. The District collector, Warangal, Warangal district. 5. The Superintendent Engineer lrrigation Department, Warangal, Warangal District 6. The Divisional Engineer, Division -lll, Narsampet, Warangal District. 7. The Sub Engineer, Sub Division -ll, Nallabelly Nallabelly Mandal, Warangal District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District. 9. The Nallabelli Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Village Secretary Nallabelli Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 10.The Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Nallabelli Warangal 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioner house sites / houses and trying to dispossession / demolition without due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice, and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India particularly Right to life, Article 21 and contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere / demolition the petitioner from their respective properties residences without following due process of law without conducting survey without call for objections / clarification from the petitioners and pass LA. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere / demolition the petitioners from their respective properties residences without following due process of law without conducting survey without call for objections / clarification from the petitioners forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3 & 5 TO 7: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP REDDY, AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 10: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP The Court made the following: ORDER <,]ta=csy 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO DATE: 22.06.2026 WRIT PETITION No.l8808 ot 2026 Between: Nanaboina Komala ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and 9 others. ...Respondents ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief "...1o issue an appropiate Wi[ Order or Direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaing the action of the Respondents in intefieing with the peaceful possesslon and enjoyment of the Petitioner's house site/residential house and attempting fo dlspossess the Petitioner and demolish the existing structures without following due process of law, without conducting any suruey, and without issuing notice or affording an opportunity to submit objections, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the pinciples of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and - 2 enjoyment of the subiect propefty or undertake any demolition proceedings except in accordance with due process of law, and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.' Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner2. Heard Mr and Mr.Laxmalla Sandeep Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for lrrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record.

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has3. Learned counsel been residing in the 9th respondent village since decades and she has been dependent on agriculture and hereditary occupation for her livelihood. lt is contended that substantial portions of her lands and properties were acquired for the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) Stages ll and lll, leaving her dependent on the remaining residential properties held under registered sale deeds, petitioner further submits that, due to4. Learned counsel for the political rivalry, the respondent authorities initiated demolition proceedings without conducting a proper survey or enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice lE *?-. -- .1)'::-V 3 the counsel for the petitioner further submits that 5. Learned petitioner has already challenged the demolition notice in W.P. No' 1934 of 2026, which is pending, yet the authorities are attempting to proceed with demolition without following due process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no proper 6. show-cause notice or reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit her explanation and that the authorities acted arbitrarily and under external infl uence.

counsel for the petitioner further submits the petitioner's 7. Learned house was marked for demolition even before service of notice and that notices bearing different dates were served simultaneously, reflecting procedural irregularities. On these grounds, the impugned action is assailed as arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. learned Assistant Government Pleader 8. Per Contra, the appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that the impugned notice had already been duly served on the petitioner. He further contended that, despite service of the notice, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation or objection till date. Therefore, according to cannot the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner complain of violation of the principles of natural justice and are at liberty to submit her reply before the competent authority. !I 1

submissions made by the learned counsel 9. Having regard to the on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit her reply/explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Till such exercise is completed and orders are passed by the competent authority, the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the subject properties However, the petitioner shall not undertake any further construction or create any third-party rights in respect of the subject properties during the said period 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. T.SRIOEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, S""larirt building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. The Engineer in chief, (o and M ) operation and Maintenance rrrigation projects, Telangana Erramanzil Colony, panjagutta, Khairatabad, Hyderabai. 3 The Project Director, sri Ram Sagar project ( sRspi warangar, warangar District.

4. The District collector, Warangal, Warangal district. 5 The Superintendent Engineer rrrigation bepartment, warangal, Warangar District 6. The Divisional Enoineer, Division -lll, Narsampet, Warangalbistrict. :::- ' a' a;--:. :'Y T The sub Engineer, sub Division -il, Nailabeily Nailabefly Mandal, warangar District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Deveropment officer, Nailabeili Mandar, warangar District. 9. The vitlage secretary Naraberi viflage and Mandar, tlarabeiti c;";"Fril;;;i Warangal District. '1 0. The Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Nallabelli Warangal District. '1 1. One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate tO-pUCl 12.Two CCs to Gp FoR IRRI AND COMM AREA beV, Hign court for the state of .- Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 'r3'Two CCs to Gp FoR REVEN0E, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 14.One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR Mppzpp tOpUCl 15.Two CD Copies PSK, PSK /w, CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2210612026 -t STAl-€: c ? JUN 2028 o ? ORDER \,,1. WP.No.18808 OF 2026 'i\.:r7 \i- ti-: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS- ,b t1sy.