Remanded

Jonna Raji Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Aug 2020WP/11446/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the grant of construction permissions to three respondents lacking title. The court directed the municipality to consider objections under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act before passing orders, without deciding on the legality of the permissions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider objections under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act before passing orders.

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O:11446 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jonna Raji Reddy, S/o Jonna lvlalla Reddy Aged aboul 72 years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o Tirumalagiri Village and Mandal Suryapet District.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary [/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Thirumalagiri Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner Thirumalagiri, Suryapet District.

¶13

3 Smt.Moola Ramanjamma, W/o Ram Reddy Age. Ma,1or, Occ. House wife R/o Thirumalagiri Village and lVandal Suryapet District.

¶14

4 Sml.Karra Anitha, W/o Srinivas Reddy Age. Ivlajor, Occ. House wife R/o Thirumalagiri Village and Mandal Suryapet District.

¶15

5 Godishala Srinivas, S/o Venkataiah Age. IVajor, Occ. Business R/o Thirumalagiri Village and lvlandal Suryapet District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or orders, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in granting permissions vide Permit No, 3099iW 1/201 9/0001 dated 20-09-2019 infavour of the respondent No.3, Permit No. 30S9/W1/2019/0002 dated 20-09-2019 infavour of the respondent No.4 and Permit No. 3099/W1/2019/0003 dated^'19-09-2019 infavour of the respondent No.5 for construction of residential buildings is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of provisions contemplated under Telangana lvlunicipalities Act and rules thereunder and consequently set aside the permissions Permit No. 3099/W 1/2019/0001 dated 20-09-2019 of the respondent No.3, Permit No. 3099/W1/2019/0002 dated 20-092019 of the respondent No.4 and Permit No. 3099/W'1/2019/0003 dated 19-09-20'19 of the respondent No.5.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent No.2 to stop the construction of buildings carrying out by the respondents No.3 to 5 forthwith in pursuant to the permissions vide Permit No. 3099/W1/2019/0001 dated 20-09-2019, Permit No. 3099M1/20'19/0002 dated 20-09-2019 and Permit No. 3099/W1/2019/0003 dated 19-09-2019 pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of^justice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M RAMA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA.KODANDA RAM

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 11446 of 202O

¶25

RDE R:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamusto declare the action of the 2nd respondent in granting permission vide permrl dated 20.09.2019 in favour of the 3'd respondent, permit dated 20.09.2020 in favour of the 4r'' respondent and permit dated 19.09.2019 in favour of the 5'h respondent for construction of residential buildings, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality Sri N. Praveen Kumar.

¶28

The petitioner assets that Respondents 3 to 5 have illegally occupled his property situated in [Valipuram, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Suryapet District and obtained^permission for construction from the municipality. lt is his case that Respondents 3 to 5 do not have title and ownership to the property and thus granting of permission in their favour is illegal. The petitioner assets that there are also other disputes with respect to the subject land.

¶29

Now, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had made an objection with respect to granting of permission in favour of Respondents 3 to 5, without expressing any opinion as to the rights of tne parties over lhe subject property or with respect to the merits oF the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2''d respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in terms of Section 176(9) of the Telagnana Municipalities Act, 2019 by following due^process.

¶30

It is needless to mention that the Commissioner shall, before^passing any orders, assue notice to the^private respondents and call for their objections and consider the same. No costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

To,

¶33

SD/-B.SATYAYATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal.secretary Municipal_Administration and Urban Development Department, State of T-etangan'a, Sear;i;;;t,'nvbuiJo"o. 2 , The commissioner. Thirumrragiri Municipaiiiv, innlln,risiri, suryapet District. 3 One CC to Sri. M. nama nao. XJvn"ri" i6ijf ici^{" ""} 4 9n" QQ^{to Sri. N. praveen t<umar,} Aovoiateidpucr . Two CCs to Gp for t/unicipal.Adminiatr;tr;;d Ur6'# Devetopment , High Courr for the State of Tetangana'at HVOeiaOaO lOUii^"" Cl . Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/08/2020

ORDER

WP.No.11446 ot 2020

o B IHE SI4 14:
/o 6(
Itr, 2 5 AUG 2020
4-
Orle416Hr:o

¶39

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶40

/)
t)
tt Ia :br

Jonna Raji Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jonna Raji Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Vijay Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bantu Ram Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ruhaina Apartments Owners Welfare Society and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Kanchu Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

A.Ranga Reddy Vs the State of Tg

M/s. Kiezen Crop Science Vs State of Telangana