Dismissed

Bairu Chandramma v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Jan 2016WP/2200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the construction of a compound wall blocking land access on National Highway ground. The Court noted that the respondents provided six meters of access, accepting the Learned Standing Counsel's submission. Finding the grievance redressed, the Writ Petition was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed as the respondent provided six meters access, redressing the petitioner's grievance. No costs.

Bairu Chandramma Vs The state of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.2200 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in constructing compound wall and raising pillars for establishing snackbar and toilets all along the length of the land of the petitioner without leaving any space for entrance to the petitioner land in Sy.No.326/E1 situated at Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, on the stretch of Hyderabad Yadagiri section near toll gate as illegal, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to remove the compound wall and the other construction made thereon preventing entrance into the petitioner land in Sy.No.326/E1 situated at Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District and pass such other order or orders which are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that without leaving access, the respondents have constructed the compound wall in his land, which is abutting to the National Highway.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents have given six meters access to the petitioner and to that effect, he has produced a map.

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that if the respondents have given six meters access to the petitioner’s land, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that since the respondents have given six meters access to the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶14

closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Date: 12.02.2020
rkk

¶15

Bairu Chandramma v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bairu Chandramma v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vhr Education Society (No.153/2007), Vs Union of India

T. Aswini, Vs The Union of India

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects Limited, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Indula Sudha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nelli Chinna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Mekala Jayamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh