Dismissed

smt.Ediga Ramulamma v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC7 Oct 2020WP/15628/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the proposed construction of Rythu Vedika Work Sheds on land alleged to be open space used as ingress/egress. The court held that the petitioners suppressed material facts regarding a previously withdrawn writ petition and filed a false affidavit, thereby failing to meet the requirement of coming with clean hands to invoke extraordinary equitabl

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; criminal action directed to be initiated against the 3rd petitioner for the false affidavit.

smt.Ediga Ramulamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15628 OF 2020

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Smt.Ediga Ramulamma, W/o. E. Bugganna Goud Aged about 66 years years, Occ. House Hold, R/o. H. No. 21152, leeja Mandal, Medikonda, Mahabubnagar District.

¶8

Smt. B. Shanthamma, W/o. Mareppa Aged about 50 years, Occ. House Hold R/o. H. No. 1/40, leeja Mandal, Medikonda, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

Smt. Pinjari Bademma, W/o. Pinjari Janmiya Aged about 62 years, 0cc.House Hold R/o. H. No. 4-112, leeja Mandal, Medikonda, lVlahabubnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

ANO

¶12

-.. 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Collector, Gadwal -Jogulamba District

¶14

The District Panchayat Raj Engineer, PlU, Gadwal Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶15

The District Agricultural Officer, Jogulamba - Gadwal District.

¶16

The District Research and Development Officer, Jogulamba^- Gadwal District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, leeja il/andal Jogulamba - Gadwal District.

¶18

T. Thippa Reddy, S/o. T. Bugga Reddy, aged 32 years, R/o. tUedikonda Village, leeja fVandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Diskict.

¶19

(R-7 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 0711012020 in lA.No. 212020.)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 an appropriate wnt or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of lr/andarn.us declaring the action of Respondents, in proposing to construct Rythu Vedika Work Sheds in Sy.

¶22

n ,--"

¶23

No. 137, situated at Medikonda Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal - Jogulamba District, by utilizing the open space left for park in the lay - out in Sy.No.137, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondents not to^proceed further with the construction of Rythu Vedika Work Shed.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

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 respondents to stop the construction of Rythu Vedika Work Shed in Sy. No. 137, situated at l\4edikonda Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal - Jogulamba District, pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. AMANCHARLA V GOPALA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRl. N. SREEDHAR REDDY

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶31

Writ Petition No.15628 of 2020

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

¶34

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in lhe nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in^proposing to construct Rlhu Vedika Work Sheds in Sy.No.137 situated at tvledikonda Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal, Jogulamba District, by utilizing the open space left for park in the layout^jn Sy.No.137, as illegal and arbitrary, and to issue consequential appropriate directions".

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.7

¶36

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and others were granted house site pattas with respect to the total land to an extent of Acs.7-00 in Sy.No.137, situated at Medikonda Village, Waddepally Mandal, Gadwal-Jogulamba District, and that some persons had constructed houses therein. While so, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.264 dated 15.06.2020, proposing to construct Rythu Vedika Work Sheds for farmer groups with the dimensions mentioned therein, and subsequently, the 2nd respondent also issued proceedings dated 24.06.2020, sanctioning 97 Rythu Vedika Work Sheds for farmer groups at an estimated cost of Rs.22 lakhs in each AEO Cluster, and that the 3'd respondent was entrusted with the work to be completed within three months. Since the land in Sy.No.137 was identified for construction of Rythu Vedika Work Sheds and the respondents are proceeding with the construction work, the petitioners approached the respondents on se_yeral occasions, but in vain. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

fl --.'

¶38

ARR, J W.P.No,15628 of 2020

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if Rythu Vedika Work Sheds are allowed to be constructed in the open space, there is no other way for the ingress and egress to the petitioners' colony and more so, an open space and the road cannot be converted into Rythu Vedika Work Sheds and the said construction will cause inconvenience to the petitioners

¶41

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture submits that the District Collector had allotted the subject land for construction of Rythu Vedika Work Sheds

¶42

Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.7, submits that Rythu Vedika Work Sheds were already constructed and only flooring work has to be done. However, he submits that construction is not made in any open space or road as alleged by the petitioners and that in the construction area, plots were not allotted to anybody. He further submits that the petitioners have not filed any document to show that the constructions are made on the road or open space. He further submits that the 3'd^petitioner herein and others have earlier filed W.P.No.1^{1052 ot} 2020, wherein respondent No.7 herein was impleaded, and^{that when it} was brought to the notice of this Court that one of^{the petitioners died, the} 3'd petitioner herein and others have withdrawn^{the said writ petition on} 28.07.2020. He also submits that^{though the 3'd petitioner herein was a} party in W.P.No.1 1052 o'f 2020,lhe same is suppressed^{in the present writ} petition and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

ln this case, it is to be seen that though^{the provisions of the Code of} Civil Procedure, 1908, are not strictly applicable^{to the writ proceedings,} in the present writ^petition, no document^{is filed to show the construction of} Rythu Vedika Work Sheds on any^part of the^{roador open space. More so,}

¶44

ARR' J w P.No.15628 0f²⁰²⁰

¶45

though it is^{statedthat construction of RythuVedika Sheds is already} completed and^{that W.P.No.1'1052of 2020 filed by the 3'd petitionerherein} and others was dismissed^{as withdrawn,whichis not disputedby the} learned counsel for the^{petitioners, the said facts are not disclosed in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{presentwrit petitionand that itself goes to} show that the 3'd^petitioner filed a false^{affidavit,for which she is liable to} prosecuted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ Courts normally grant relief based on the affidavit as it^{is well settled that a person} invoking an extraordinary equitable^jurisdiction of the Court^{under Article} 226 of the Construction is required to come with clean hands without suppressing the material facts and a person who suppresses material facts is not entitled to claim any relief.

¶46

ln view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, is directed to initiate criminal action against the 3'd petitioner-Smt Pinjari Bademma, as she filed present writ petition without disclosing filing of earlier W.p.No.11OS2 of 2020 along with others showing a dead person as one of the petitioners therein. Paragraph No.9 of the present writ affidavit reads as follows;

¶47

"The petitioners have not filed any writ petition, suit or other proceedings for the relief of relieves sought herein,,.

¶48

No order as to costs. fViscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed

¶49

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'

}. . SECTION OFFICER

To,

Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶54

One CC to Sri. Amancharla V Gopala Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri. N. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶56

Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court for the State of Telangana [our] 5. Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/10/2020

,/..
-{ tr 5 i".
<br>'J
() 04 Nov2U0 o
\ -5
*

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.15628^{ot 2020}

¶63

Dismissing^{the WP} Without^costs'

¶64

smt.Ediga Ramulamma v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

smt.Ediga Ramulamma v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

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

M/s. SandS Green Projects Private Limited Vs P.Srinivasa Rao

Sri. Palakurthy Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

P. Bala Mallesh Vs Smt. Sujatha Raji Reddy

Uppala Krishna Mohan Sarma, Peda Venkateswara Sastry Vs The State of Telangana

Ravinder Singh Arora Vs Intellistay Hotels Private Limited

M/s. Srr Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Senior Divisional Manager, DO-1