Dismissed

Sri Bathula Rajaveeru v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2020WP/11692/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Warangal Municipal Corporation to remove illegal structures built by third parties on disputed land upon which the third parties had entered without permission. The Court observed that since third parties were in possession, the petitioner should have approached the Municipality to verify permissions first.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to demolish construction or consider complaints; no costs.

Sri Bathula Rajaveeru Vs The State Of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11692 oF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Bathula Rajaveeru, S/o. Late. Bathula Venkatiah, aged^{76 years,} Occ.Business R/O H No. 2-2-50811, Ram Nagar, Hanumakonda,^Warngal.

¶8

Sri Gurupal Reddy, S/o. Late Sri K. Pitchi Reddy, Aged^{49 years, Occu.} Business, R/o. H.No.'1^{1 -25-7} 09, Kothawada, Warangal^{Urban District.}

¶9

Smt. l/erugu Vanamala, W/o. Kumara Swamy,^{Aged43 Years, Occu.} Housewife, Rlo.l 4-8-231, Girmajipet, Warangal City.

¶10

4, Sri l,4. Sambaiah, S/o. Sammaiah, Aged 46^years, Occu. Business, R/o. H. No.2-4-1 21 7 12, Gandhi Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'l . The State Of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Department, Secretariat Hyderabad

¶14

The Commissioner, The Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal, Warangal Urban District .

¶15

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman , Hanumakonda, Warangal Urban District.

¶16

Sri Devarakonda Prabhakar, S/o. Kanakarajam, Aged 69^years, Occu. Advocate, Rl/o. H. No.30-2-61 /A5, Ayodhyapuram X Road,^T, N.G.Os Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

¶17

Sri Pothuraju Raju, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 48^years, Occu. Business, R/o.H.No.29-1 1-325, llnd Bank Colony, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶18

Sri Kadaru Sridhar, S/o. Balakrishnaiah, Aged 47^years, Occu. Business, R/o. H. No.3-14-5'1 , Yadavanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶19

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, I,4ore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus , declaring the actjon of Respondent No. 2 in not considering petitioners complaints dated 09-07-2020 ,10-07-2020, 1307-2020 , 15-07-2020 and 20- 07-2020 which are given personally and by registered courier service is illegal, arbitrary, violative of article 14 and iS of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to Consider the complaints given by the petitioners No^'1 to 4 on 09-07-2020 ,10-07-2020, 13-07-2020 ,15-07-2020 and 20-07 -7 020 and remove the illegal construction of compound wall and gate in open plots admeasuring 1013 Sq.yds and 600 Sq.yds in survey No. 76612, Lecturers Colony, lvlulugu Road, Hanurnakonda, Warangal as per due process of law.

¶21

lA NO; 1 OF 2020

¶22

,n"??l,JlX,,u;Xi,^{section 1s1} cpc prayins rhar in direct il;''i",[:-'l 'Yqno't^{or the} ,T, e.^{; ;,;i:"ri;iT};;iii:4ffi1tr} ffi n,qj,; H fl :,x..?fl ,= ie process of law. rru,;.Blif #i tiii,l; trf t s,* y= *^g, * *,

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI L. V. RAMANA RAO ;i tsT i,Jil,,3? [EitJ,fl El,T "., : G^p Fo R M u N I c I pA L A D ,,r I N I s rRA, o N

¶24

counser for the Respondent No.2: Ms. prNGALr LAK'HMT, SC FOR GWMC Counset for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.AJAY KUMAR, SC FOR KUDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:___---

¶25

The Court nracle the following: ORDER

¶26

TIIE IION'I}I,II SRI .ITJS'TICE CIIAI,I,A KODANDA RAM WRI PET-I'TIO No.l1692 2020

¶27

oRDIiII:

¶28

Petitioner No.l asset't that he is the owner of land adrneasuring l0l3 square yards in Survey No.766/2, I-.B. college. Murlugr_r x l{oacl" llanarnkonda. Warangal: that he solc'l the said Ianci to pct.itioner Nos.2 to.l and tlrat rcspotldcnt Nos.4 to 6lravc illcgally entercd into thc lbove saicl property and detltolished the bounclary stones and rnal<ing constructieps rvithout obtaini rrg pcrnr ission,

¶29

I lcarcl icar.nccl counscl litr. thc pctitiorrcrs.

¶30

Learned Standing counsel Ms.pingali Lakshrni appearing for respondent No.2-Colrnlissitlncr. Warangal Municipal Corporatit-rp u,6irlcl ritisc prclirrinat'y obicctiiln that the Corporation has not becn rnadc as part' respottdent. She subrnits that the writ pt:tition is not praintaipable as. cssentially. the petitioncr is seekirrg injunction against rcsponclcnt Nes,.{ rg 6' Shc lr-rrlhcr subrnils that thc pctitir>ncr had not approachcci thc Corporaticltl ttl vct'il) lvhether any pcrrnission w,as granlecl t9 rcspondcnl Nos.4 to 6.

¶31

'l'his ctlLrrt ltits rcpcatcclll'trccn stating tlrtrt thc cepr;llaiparts. rvithoLtt enqLriritle lvhcther an)' pennission rvas grantccl in lavclur ol'thir.ri parties or not. are sLrbrnitling rctters t. trrc Municip,r cortrlorat'ion/Mtrrricipalitv allceing that third partics hi,ii,c cncrcachccl arcl arc ntaliing construrctiorrs iIlcgall,l.

¶32

In thc prcscrr casc. r)xccpt sLrbrrittin5t ir crrrpraint to thc Corporation, the petitioners have not approached the authorities nor verillcd rihcthc. ar'pcrrissitxr was sought by respclndent Nos.4 t.6 anci rvas granted by thc Corporatior-r. r-'ur1hcr, if'rcspondenI Nclp.4 to 6 are makine

¶33

construction by occupying^{the pctitioncrs"property"thc satrtc. at bcsi'} would alrrount to^{trcspass antt illegaloccLlpation. Assurningthatt resptllrtlcnt} Nos.4 to 6 are rnakilg^{constructionwithout obtaining any pelnission, the} role of the municipal^{authoritieswoutdbe to ensure ntl stlch constrLlcti()lls} are made. However,^{the petitionersin the writ affldavit have clearlystatcd} that the third^{plrtics are in possession o1'their property. legal or illegal'lrt} the circunrStanCc.^{thc petititlners are rcquirccl to see k ttlttnclatory itt.ittnctign} beforc the cii,il^{(iourt. rvhich $,oulclad.iLrclicatethe rnuttct'ltttcl retrclet'rr} .iLrclgnrcnt^{alicr rt lirll-llcdgccl trial'}

¶34

1i the light ol'the^{above, this Court is not inclinccl to entertainthc} rvrit petition, llcllcc,^{it is disrnisseclleavingit opcnto thc pctitiollcrst()} *'urk out thcir^{rc-tl-tctJicsas availablein larl"} I

¶35

MisccllancoLrs^{Petitions. il' any pending. shall stand rcloscd. 'l'hcrc}

¶36

shall be no orcler^{as to costs}

ASSIST^ANT

,/TRUE^COPY'I

FICER

To,

1.^{One CC to Sri L' V' RamanaRao' Advocate [OPUCI} z.One^{CC to Nfspingali Lakshmi' SC for GWIVIC'Advocate IOPUCI} Kumar'^{SC for KUDA' Advocate toPUCl} 3.^{one CC to Sri ;;*}

¶42

4lix?:if,$'J$ltr*:**:i:t'siall#l:i33fl""ropment'

5.^{Two CD Copies}

SM O,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812020

pl I

ORDER

WP.No.11692 of 2020

1 t.l E s ]'a
O 2 4 AtjE 2020
* *
c,a11,,1 ,(-.1 .

¶52

DISMISSING THE^WP

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

Sri Bathula Rajaveeru v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bathula Rajaveeru 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

Khaja Nayeemuddin Vs State of Telangana

Sirigiri Narsaiah Vs the State of Telangana

G.Upender Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Sriven Organics Private Limited Vs The State of Telengana

M/s. Vijaya Agritech Vs The State of Telengana and another

M/s.Sriven Crop Sciences Vs The State of Telengana and another