Dismissed

Smt. Rukhmini Bai v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Jul 2009WP/14047/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the denial of permission to construct a room, the High Court held that the petitioner has effective civil remedies available, noting the alternative of seeking injunctive relief or dispensing with notice under Section 80 CPC. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Liberty preserved to pursue appropriate alternative remedies.

Smt. Rukhmini Bai Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14047 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. Rukhmini Bai W/o. Digambar R/o. Plot No. 7, Siddiq Nagar, Gachibowli (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The District Collector,

¶10

Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

3 The Tahsildar, Seri Lingampallu Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the acts of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to construction a room on her Plot No. 7, Siddiq Nagar, Gachibowli Village, Seri Lingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice or intimating any proceedings as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARASIMHULU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14047 OF 2009

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Unlawful conduct of interference with the petitioner’s property in the assigned plot of 100 square yards in Sy.No.34, Gachibowli, Serilingampaly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in particular by the 2^nd respondent who is alleged to be obstructing the petitioner from constructing a room in the said plot, is the grievance in this writ petition.

¶21

In respect of such a grievance, the petitioner has a plurality of remedies including by way of seeking injunctive relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and in case of imminent threat or injury, by seeking dispensing with the notice under Section 80 CPC.

¶22

As the petitioner is seen to have an effective alternative remedy closer to her habitat, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with liberty preserved in the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs.

¶24

_________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶25

15^th *JULY 2009 Note: Issue CC as Soon as possible (B/O) TSNR

Smt. Rukhmini Bai v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukhmini Bai v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Samburu Aruna Vs The tahsildar

B. Phanidra Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Akber Hussain Vs Haleema Begum , Ameena Begum

Gundloooru Shankaraiah Vs The District Collector, Kadapa District.

V. Indrasena Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary