Disposed

B. Shiva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Sept 2019WP/20493/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two orders, Justice Challa Kodanda Ram dismissed a writ petition regarding property encroachment as a factual matter requiring trial, while in another order, he directed a municipality to act on a representation within 15 days pending a prior division bench direction.

What did the court decide?

In one W.P., dashed; in another ordered municipality to act on representation within 15 days.

B. Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 20493 of 2019

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that some unknown persons have occupied the property bearing Municipal Nos.15-1-652 to 15-1-656 situated at Feel Khana, Hyderabad, which was assigned to him, and are trying to make constructions thereon.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor and helpless person and the subject property was assigned in his favour.

¶5

Whether the petitioner has acquired title and whether he is dispossessed forcibly by the third parties, who are not impleaded as party respondents, are all questions of fact. At any rate, neither respondent No.3-District Collector, Hyderabad nor respondent No.4Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation can redress the grievance of the petitioner as his allegation is that some unknown persons encroached his property.

¶6

In those circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to workout the remedies in accordance with law.

¶7

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

_________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶9

Dt:24.09.2019 kdl

¶10

The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2-Narsampet Municipality is not considering the representation dated 18.09.2017 submitted by it complaining the unauthorised constructions made by respondent No.3.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 seeks time to get instructions in the matter.

¶12

Considering the nature of grievance of the petitioner and in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2006 in W.P.No.20000 of 2006 that such representations shall be dealt with by the Municipal Corporations and the Municipalities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof or of notice sent by any person with the complaint regarding illegal/unauthorised construction, and written response invariably be given to such person, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to take action on the representation of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in the Writ Petition

¶14

shall also stand disposed of. No costs.

B. Shiva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Shiva Kumar 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

Mr.Abdul Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Darbar Prakash Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Ghouse Pasha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

A. Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Thokkala Buchi Reddy, Vs Warangal Municipal Corporation

Mr.Mohd.Abdul Azis Vs Ts.,M.a.D,Prl.Scy,Hyd,and 3