Disposed

Smt. Jyothsna Devi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2020WP/12180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Writ Petition and interlocutory applications seeking to restrain issuance of construction and change of land use permissions for disputed land pending disposal of civil suits. The Court accepted submissions that the relevant authority had kept the application in abeyance and directly disposed of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; direct instruction to the HMDA to take necessary action in accordance with law; costs not allowed.

Smt. Jyothsna Devi Vs State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (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: 12180 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Jyothsna Devi, W/o. Late N. Krishna Rao Aged about 78 Years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo. 14820 Brookhaven Pl, Chesterfield, MO - 63017, USA Represented by her GPA Holder Sri P Sadasiva Rao, S/o. Late Mr. Gangadhar Rao, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 501, Satyaloka Towers, Hyderabad and also at.H. No. 5-8-24 and 25, FS Lane, Abids, Hyderabad

¶8

...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Represented by the Prl. Secretary, Ir/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

State of Telangana, Represented by the Prl. Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad

¶13

The Director, Country and Town Planning Depadment Opp. PTI Building, AC Guards, Hyderabad

¶14

Hyderabad l/etro Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Government of Telangana, Bachupally IVlandal earlier Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, I,4edchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶16

Mandal Revenue Officer, Government of Telangana Qutbullapur It4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

Smt. Y. Swarna Kumari Devi, W/o. Sri. Y. B. Tata Rao, Aged about 80 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H. No. 5-9-30/1/9, Palace Colony, Basheerbagh, Road No. 2, Hyderabad - 063.

¶18

M/s. Speed Vidyut Venture Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at. Semushi Towers, Plot No. 21, Rao and Raju Colony, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 034 Rep. by its fr/anaging Director

¶19

10.Sri. K. Shankar Reddy, S/o. Sri. K. Kotireddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 8-2-624lA181311, Flat No. 301, Road No. 11, Burri Residency, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 034

¶20

'1 1.Sri. Kolanu Bal Reddy, S/o. K. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. SRT 80, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad - 015

¶21

12.1t4/s. Rudhra Constructions P. Ltd., Having its regd. Office at Flat No.404 Plot No. 98, 99 and 100 Ramchandra Residency, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad 500 072, rep By its Managing Director Sri Pallempati Naveen S/o. Pallempati Ramchandra Rao, aged 36 years, Occ.business, R/o. Flat No.403 Plot No. 98,99 and 100 Ramchandra Residency, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad 50O 072

¶22

Sri Pallempati Naveen, S/o Pallempati Ramchandra Rao, aged 36 years, Occ.business, R/o. Flat No.403 Plot No. 98, 99 and 100 Ramchandra Residency, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad 500 072

¶23

...RES'ONDENTS

¶24

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 Direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwjse declaring the inaction on the part of the Official Respondents in considering the Representation of the Petitioner daled 22.2.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power, opposed to Articles^'14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia as the subject lands are in dispute and sub^judice in the Court in O.S.No.290012019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar and in O.S.No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and

¶25

consequently restrain the official respondents from^{issuing permissionsfor} construction pursuant to the application made by the unofficial^{Respondentsor} anybody claiming through them to the HMDA in file No.020827lMADl R1/U6/HtVDA/25022019 and also restrain the official respondents from^{issuing any} permission for change of land use with regard to any application received in respect of lands in Sy.Nos. 132, 142,143 and 144 totally admeasuring 4c.22-03^{gts situated} at Bachupally, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Revenue authorities ie., Respondents Nos. 3, 6 and 7 not to sanction change of land use in respect of land in Sy.No.132, 142, 143, and 144 totally admeasuring Ac.22-03 gts situated at Bachupally, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District if any application is made either by the unofficial respondents herein or otherwise, pending disposal of this Writ Petition.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶29

Petition under Section 15'1 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 Hyderabad [Vletro Development Authority i-e. Respondent No.5 herein not to issue an construction permission to the unofficial respondents herein or anyone claiming by or under them pursuant to the application made to the 5th Respondent in file No. 020827/MAD/R1/U6/HMDA/25022019 in respect of land in Sy.No.132,142,'143 and 144 admeasuring Ac.22-03 gts situated at Bachupally, Qutbullapur [t/andal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of this Writ Petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUNIL B. GANU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 4: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI NARASIMHA GOUD, S.C. FOR H.M.D.A. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 13: -

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.12180 of 2020

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved of the non-consideration of her objections dated 22.O2.2020 by the official respondents requestlng not to issue construction permissions in the subject lands in Survey Nos.132, 142, 743 and t44 admeasuring Ac.22-O3 Gts situated at Bachupally, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict, as the subject lands are in dispute and civil suits are pending in O.S.No.2900 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar, and ln O.S.No.203 of 2011 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou rt, Hydera bad.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent HMDA.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel submits on instructions that after receiving the objections of the petitioner dated 22.O2.2020, the applications for construction permission are not being processed and the same shall be kept in abeyance till the time the objections of the petitioner are disposed of in accordance with law.

¶41

In the light of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the respondent HMDA shall take necessary action in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/-K.A AJI

¶43

ASSISTANT RE TRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

¶45

To, 1. The Prl. Secretary, Ir,4unicipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

1. The Pd. Secretary Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶47

The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, La kdi-ka-Pool, H yd lera bad 4. The Director, Country and Town Planning Department Opp. PTI Building, AC Guards, Hyderabad

¶48

The Commissioner, Hyderabad lvletro Development Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Government of Telangana, Bachupally lVlandal earlier Qutbullapur lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District lt4edchal Malkajgiri District.

¶50

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Government of Telangana, Qutbullapur [.4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶51

B. One CC to Sri Sunil B. Ganu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP For lt4unicipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶53

'10. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Sri Narasimha Goud, S.C. for H.M.D.A. IOPUC]

¶55

12.f wo CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812020

1P. E s i,,'r )6
(
2 5 AUG 2020 I
<<br>t-
o
a:.q D/--i a .,*9

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.12180 of²⁰²⁰

¶63

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶64

2t2n'
L

Smt. Jyothsna Devi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyothsna Devi v. 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

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