Allowed

Smt. Gorukanti Laxmi And 15 Others v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC5 Nov 2019WP/23949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a special notice issued by the Gram Panchayat for house demolition. The Court quashed the notice on the ground that it was issued without prior notice and was vague, without examining the merits. It allowed further action by the Panchayat after issuing proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned special notice dated 23.9.2019 set aside; Writ Petition allowed.

Smt. Gorukanti Laxmi And 15 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITON No.23949 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The prayer of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is as under:

¶5

“… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 23/09/2019 issued by the 4th respondent in demolishing the petitioners houses in asking the petitioners to get the set backs correctly and otherwise to take appropriate action in respect of the petitioners houses situated at Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Ranga Reddy) as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India and as well as the without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondent not to dispossess or interfere the petitioners above said houses and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

In this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the special notice,

¶7

dated 23.9.2019 issued by respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat.

¶9

From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned special notice is not preceded by any notice and more so, it appears to be very vague. Hence, the impugned special notice is liable to set aside on this short ground alone.

¶10

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is

¶11

¶12

open to respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat to take further action, if any, after issuing notice to the petitioners.

¶13

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall

¶14

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶15

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶16

05^th November, 2019 dr

Smt. Gorukanti Laxmi And 15 Others v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gorukanti Laxmi And 15 Others v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

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

Amudalapally Vodelu Vs The Under Secretary to Government of India

M/s. K. Lakshman Singh and Co. Vs The Garrison Engineer (U)

M/s. K. Lakshman Singh and Co. Vs The Garrison Engineer (U)

M/S Jkl Engineers and Consultants, Hyd Vs Sri Venkateswara Neuro and Super Speciality Hospitals Pvt. L

Gadapa Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Lakshmi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.