Allowed

Sirigiri Narsaiah v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2020WP/12131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a demolition notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner regarding unauthorized construction. The Court directed the respondent to pass orders under Section 178(8) of the Telangana Municipalities Act before proceeding with any demolition. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to pass orders under Section 178(8) of the Telangana Municipalities Act before proceeding with demolition of the petitioner's property.

Sirigiri Narsaiah Vs the State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12131 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sirigiri Narsaiah, S/o. Veeraswamay, Aged about 42 yearc, R/o. H.No.5/1/18 511211, sth ward, Jangaon Town, Jangaon District.

¶8

...PET|TIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The lVunicipal Commissioner, Jangaon, Jangaon District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt4andamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice dated 171712020 under Sec. 178 ( 2) of Telangana Municipality Act, 20'19 against the petitioner in respect of the construction being taken up by the petitioner in respect of H. No.5-1-'185/12l1 , in Sy.No.53/1 , at Sanjaya Nagar Colony, Jangaon Town, Jangaon District as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Arts.'14 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the impugned notice by directing the respondent No.2 from^proceeding with any further action as to demolition of the structures being made by the petitioner.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

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 direct^the Respondent No.2 not to^proceed with any action as to the demolition of the structures in respect of H.No.5-1-18511211, in Sy.No.53/1 , at Sanjaya Nagar Colony, Jangaon Town, Jangaon District of the^{petitioner, pending} disposal of writ^petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. BHAKTHAVATSAL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATION AND}

¶18

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. CHANAKYA,

¶20

LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI N, PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'I}LI' SRI JUSTICE CTIAI,LA KODANDA RAM WIII'[ PETITIO N No. l2l3l of 2020

¶23

OITDER:

¶24

Petitioner alleges that respondent No.2 Mun ic ipa I Commissioner, Jangaon, Jangaon District. issued a noticc^(lirtcd l7 .07.2020 at thc instance ol a third party and without an"' urrauthorized construction made bv him.^'l'hcrc is also lactual misconstruction that he is making construction in the land to an extent o1'202 sq,1,arcls. r.vhcrcas. the constrr,rction made bl him is only' in^t)(r sc1.1ards of land and no inspection was conducted belbre issr-rance of' such notice. florvevcr, he asserts that on rcccipt ol'such noticc. hc submitted explanalion on 24.01 .2020, but, so far, no orders havc bcur passed by respondcnt No.2. His grievance is that instead ol' considering the explanation submitted b1' thc petiLioncl and passing appropriate orders, lhe respondent authoritics are thrcatening hirr to dernolish the constrr.rction made bv him. I-lence. he flled this Writ Petition.

¶25

On thc othcr hand, Sri G. Chanal<ya, learncd coLrnscl representing Sri N. l)raveen Kurnar. learned Standing^(lounsel fbr lespondent No.2, submits, on instructions, thar the petitioncr"s prernises r.,r'as inspected by the authorities on a complaint having been received ll'onr one M. Pandu and the notices wcre also issued on 22.06.'020 fbllowed by 08.07.2020; that the erplanation. i1' anr," submitted bl thc pctitioncl would be corrsidclcd; thar thc allegations

¶26

made by the petitioner that he is constructing only 96 sq.yards is I'alsc and in flact. he had constructed Ground + First Floors over an extent ol 202 sq.yards, as statcd in the noticc itself and that the explanation submitted by the petitioner would be considered and only alicr recording dellnitc findings with regard to the deviations, der.nolitiorr, if r-recessary, would be carried out b1' the respondent authorities.

¶27

'fherc is no dispute that thc petitioncr submittcd his cxplanatiort to the irnpugned notice and as on date, no orders have been passed. lt is to be notecl that rvithout lecording dcllnite frrrdiugs with rc-e.alcl t..r the violatior-r allcged to have been rnade by thc^{petitioner:andwithoLrt} passing appropliate orders, no derrolition can be undcrtaken.

¶28

ln those circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed ol^with thc direction to rcspondent No.2 to pass orders in.telrns ol Sectiorr 178(8) of the 1'elangana Municipalities Act, befor:e^{proceedingwith} dernolition, if any, of the petitioner's property.

¶29

Miscellaneous Petitions, il any pending, shall stand closed.

¶30

'fhele shall bc no orclcr as to costs.

¶31

SD/.K,AM ASSISTANT^REG

¶32

//TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶33

To, 1. The tr,4unicipal Commissioner, Jangaon' Jangaon District' z. One CC to^{Sri P. Bhakthavatsal' Advocate[uru'l} I rwo ccs to GP^{ro|. vri,""iiiiir'Xid;;:t"'tt;;nd Urban Development'Hish} - Court for the State of Telangana lou I] 4 one CC to Sri^{u. praueei'ii'lma-riSb'f o' N/lunicipalities IOPUCI} 5. Two^CDCoPies,

IVP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110812020

ORDER

1ttE SIA r€
a
co 2 5 AUG 2020 cz
.' -,.1 -h,
-*
Fsp.rrTc

¶39

WP.No.12131 of 2020

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

I
D-

Sirigiri Narsaiah v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirigiri Narsaiah 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

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others Vs the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

Nanna Umadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Yapachettu Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Nayeemuddin Vs State of Telangana

G.Upender Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Edsmart Global LLP and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others