Common Order:

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents No.2 to 5 in considering and disposing of the representations of the petitioner dated 01.11.2025 and 06.11.2025 pertaining to the illegal construction raised by unofficial respondent No.6 in Sy.No.1/AA of Thunkimetla Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Vikarabad District, as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct respondents No.2 to 5 to demolish the said illegal construction and restrain respondent No.6 from proceeding with any further construction in terms of Section 120 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and to pass such other order or orders.

2.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of House No.5-12 in plot admeasuring 335 square yards in Sy.No.1/AA of Thunkimetla Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Vikarabad District, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1980 of 2011, dated 01.08.2011, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Kodangal, for valuable sale consideration. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed three shutters and three rooms over an extent of 103 square yards out of the total extent of 335 square yards and left the remaining extent of 232 square yards vacant for future construction. It is further submitted that, with a view to construct a house over the remaining portion of the subject property, the petitioner applied for building permission vide Application No.47, and the same is pending consideration.

               2.2. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, respondent No.6 purchased an open plot admeasuring 266 square yards in Sy.No.1/AA of Thunkimetla Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Vikarabad District, adjacent to the petitioner's property. Thereafter, when the respondent No.6 started interfering with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner filed O.S.No.31 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, seeking perpetual injunction. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.6 started construction over the land and on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.6 had not obtained any building permission for the said construction. The petitioner, therefore, immediately submitted representations to the respondent authorities requesting them to take action against the illegal construction being carried out by respondent No.6. As no action was taken on the said representations, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Vide interim order dated 18.11.2025, after taking into consideration the oral instructions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 that respondent No.6 had not obtained any building permission and that a notice dated 17.11.2025 has been issued to respondent No.6 directing him to stop the construction, and since a copy of the said notice has also been furnished before this Court, this Court directed all the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on the said date in respect of the subject property. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended from time to time.

4. Alleging violation of the said interim order of status quo by the unofficial respondent by proceeding with the construction without obtaining permission and in spite of the subsistence of the interim order, the petitioner filed C.C.No.4179 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs filed along with the contempt case to demonstrate that, though the interim order dated 18.11.2025 was subsisting, respondent No.6 has proceeded with the construction. The said photographs bear the date and time demonstrating that respondent No.6 continued with the construction. Taking note of the said contention and the material placed on record, this Court issued notice to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the latest photographs to demonstrate that, even after filing of the contempt case and issuance of notices therein, respondent No.6 proceeded to make the construction.

6.1. The Gram Panchayat-Respondent No.4 in the contempt case has filed a counter-affidavit as well as an additional counter-affidavit stating that unofficial respondent No.6 in writ petition/respondent No.5 in the contempt case submitted an application for building permission on 27.01.2026 and that the same was considered, pursuant to which building permission was granted on 30.01.2026 vide Proceedings No.57/BP/2026.

               6.2. It is further submitted that, when respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction, he was directed to stop the same in view of the status quo order passed by this Court. However, notwithstanding the said direction, respondent No.5 proceeded with the construction. It is stated that a notice dated 03.02.2026 was issued in that regard, but thereafter, the concerned Panchayat Secretary was transferred from Thunkimetla Gram Panchayat to Kasthala Gram Panchayat, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District, on 27.02.2026. It is further stated that one C. Siddaiah took charge as In-charge Panchayat Secretary of Thunkimetla Gram Panchayat from 04.03.2026 to 15.07.2026 and, thereafter, one D. Venkataiah took charge of Thunkimetla Gram Panchayat on deputation from 16.07.2026 to 31.07.2026, however, on 01.08.2026, C. Siddaiah has been deputed as incharge Panchayat Secretary of said Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that, on enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the concerned authorities that the Gram Panchayat had again issued a notice dated 18.03.2026 directing respondent No.5 to stop all construction in view of the status quo order passed by this Court.

               6.3. It is further submitted that, as respondent No.6 continued with the construction, the present Panchayat Secretary, along with the Mandal Panchayat Officer (MPO), visited the subject site, stopped the construction and obtained an undertaking from respondent No.5 that he would comply with the status quo order passed by this Court until disposal of the writ petition.

               6.4. As regards the contention of respondent No.5 that he had submitted a letter dated 20.08.2025 to respondent No.4 seeking building permission by enclosing the requisite application and documents, it is submitted that no such letter was submitted by respondent No.5 and that the signature and stamp appearing thereon are forged and he reserves the right to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent No.5 for forging his signature.

               6.5. It is further submitted that an application for building permission can only be made through the online e-Panchayat portal, as contemplated under Section 114 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and that respondent No.5, for the first time, submitted an online application only on 27.01.2026. It is therefore contended that the application dated 20.08.2025 was never submitted by respondent No.5. It is also submitted that he has great respect for the orders of this Court and that, during his tenure as Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, he has issued notices to unofficial respondent No.5 and did not commit any act amounting to contempt of the orders of this Court.

7. The unofficial respondent has relied upon the counter-affidavit filed by him in W.P.No.24822 of 2025 and submitted that he has been making construction within the legitimate boundaries of his property without interfering with the rights of anybody, including those of the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that the construction was being carried out in accordance with law under Section 114(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of the notices issued by this Court, he stopped further construction and that respondent No.5 granted building permission to him on 30.01.2026. It is therefore submitted that there was no contempt, non-compliance or wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

8.1. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that respondent No.6 was proceeding with construction without obtaining any building permission under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and after taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.6 was not granted building permission, this Court, vide order dated 18.11.2025, directed all the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property. From the photographs filed along with the contempt case, it is noticed that, at the relevant point of time, i.e., when the order of status quo was passed, the construction was at the foundation level and only pillars were being raised. However, from the photographs subsequently filed before this Court, it is evident that respondent No.6 has proceeded with the construction and completed the roof slab of the building and also constructed the walls.

               8.2. Thus, it is clear that, in spite of the direction of this Court to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property, unofficial respondent No.6 proceeded with the construction. The material on record also discloses that the official respondents though have issued notices directing respondent No.6 to stop the construction, failed to take effective steps to ensure compliance with the order of this Court. This Court is, therefore, convinced that there is blatant violation of the order dated 18.11.2025, particularly on the part of unofficial respondent No.6, who proceeded with the construction in spite of the subsistence of the status quo order passed by this Court. Consequently, the construction raised in violation of the orders of this Court is liable to be demolished.

               8.3. Accordingly, the official respondents are directed to take immediate and appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to have the construction raised by respondent No.6 in violation of the order of this Court demolished.

               8.4. Insofar as the official respondents in this contempt case are concerned, this Court notices that there has been a change of officers and that successive Panchayat Secretaries have issued notices directing respondent No.6 to stop the construction, but they failed to effectively prevent the construction resulting in violation of the order of this Court. Having regard to the change of officers and the circumstances placed on record, the contempt proceedings against the official respondents are closed with a warning to the concerned officers to be more careful and vigilant in future in ensuring due compliance with the orders of this Court. In the event the incumbent officer of respondents No.2 to 4 fail to comply with the aforesaid direction or otherwise defies the order of this Court, they shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one (01) week. The contempt case is accordingly partly allowed.

9. Insofar as the writ petition is concerned, respondent No.6 shall be at liberty to undertake construction strictly in accordance with the building permission granted to him and the sanctioned plan, subject to his complying with all applicable statutory requirements. Since respondent No.6 was granted building permission subsequently, i.e., on 30.01.2026, after filing of the writ petition and after passing of the interim order dated 18.11.2025, any further construction shall be strictly in accordance with the said permission and sanctioned plan. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is accordingly closed.

10. In the result;

               (i) The Writ Petition is closed.

               (ii) The Contempt Case is partly allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.