Disposed

Nanna Umadevi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2020WP/9838/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 9838 of 2020, petitioners challenged interference by respondent authorities regarding their construction work on inherited Gramakantam property. The court disposed of the writ petition as a notice under Section 451 and 461 of the GHMC Act had already been issued, directing authorities to follow rules while permitting construction if lawful.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to pass orders following the Rules in force, allowing construction if done in accordance with law.

Nanna Umadevi Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

IVONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9838 OF 2020

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Nanna Umadevi, W/o.Nanna Yadaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.6-39, Nadergul, Saroornagar l,4andal, (Now Balapur tr,4andal), Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶8

2, Cherupally Vishwanadham, S/o.Cherupally Laxrninarayana, Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.8-1-172. Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar It4andal, R.R. District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary [t4unicipal Administration department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, GHIt/C, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, GH[/C, L.B. Nagar Circle.

¶14

S.Pentaiah Goud, S/o. Suraiah, Aged about 65 Years, Occ. Rtd. Employee, R/o. H.No.1 8-1-1 73, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar IVlandal,. R.R. District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [,4andamus, to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 not to interfere on the construction work of petitioners house properties vide house bearing H.No.8-1-172 part (since demolished open land) admeasuring 65.33 Sq.Yrds plus 65.33 Sq.Yrds total 1 30.66 Sq.Yrds situated at Ward No.B, Block No.1 , situated at Gramakantam of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Revenue Vandal under greater Hyderabad l,4unicipal corporation Iimits of L.B. Nagar, Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, which is an Gramakantam property on the instigation of respondent No.4.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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 and 3 not to interfere in the construction work of^petitioners house properties vide H.No.8-1-172 parl (since demolished open land) admeasuring 65.33 Sq.Yrds⁺ 65.33 Sq.Yrds total 130.66 Sq.Yrds situated at Ward No.8, Block No.1, situated at Gramakantam of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Revenue^l,4andal

¶19

under^{greater Hyderabadlvunicipal corporation limits of L'8. Nagar, circle' Ranga} Reddy District,^{Telangana,which is an Gramakantam propertywith due processof} law.

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI' PADALAPRAVIN KUMAR}

¶21

Counsel for^{the ResPondent No'1:} GP FOR MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶22

CounselfortheRespondentNos.2&3:SRI.SAMPATHSSIilHARREDDY'

¶23

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'4: NONE nppEaneO}

¶24

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI^{.IUSTICECHALLAKODANDA RAM}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.9838^{of 2020}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Petitioners allege tliat^{property adrneasuring 196 sq.yards situatedat} Grarnakantarn of Karrnanghat^{Village,Saroomagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy} District, was dividecl anong^{tlu'ee of the siblings of late CherLrpalll"} Laxrlinarayarla, who is their^{father, and they being the sisterancl brother} had inherited 65.33 sq.yards^{each and are constructing the tenetuentsduly} following the procedure^{prescribed. Their grievanceis that at tlie instatrce} of respondent No.4, the^{respondent authorities are interfering with their} construction. Hence, they filed this^{Writ Petition.}

¶29

Sri Sarnpath Prabhakar^{Reddy, leamed Standing Counselfor Greater} Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{subrnits that as the petitioners had ttot} obtained ltennission for construction^{of tenetnents"as mandated.the} respondent authorities issued a^{notice to the petitionerson 05.0fi.2020} invoking Sections 451 and 461 of^{GreaterHyderabadMunicipal} Corporation Act, ancl if any actior-r^{is required to be taker-r, they wouldtal<e} in accordance'uvitlr law.

¶30

lnasrnuch as the notice under Sections 451 and⁴⁶¹ of^{the aforesaid} Act had already been issued to the petitioners, this Writ^{Petition is disposed} of directing the respondent authorities to^pass orders by strictly^following the Rules in force. It is made clear that if the petitioners are carrying out^the construction in accordance with law, they shall be at liberty to do so.

¶31

( Klt..r \' P \ro^r)S.1S ot tr):(l

¶32

¶33

otherwise, the respondent authorities are entitled to take action ir-r

¶34

accordance with law.

¶35

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any pendi,g, shall stand crosed. There

¶36

shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SD/.M.MANJULA

¶38

ASSISTANT REGIST]R-AR //TRUE COPY// \V

¶39

SECTIOIf OFFICER

¶40

To,'1. The Principal Secretary, [Vunicipal Administration Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Cbmmissioner, GHIVC, Tankbund,^Hyderabad.

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC,^{L.B. NagarCircle.}

¶43

One CC to- Sri Padala Pravin Kumar^Advocate IOPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to the GP for^{lVunicipal Administration and Urban Development,High}

¶45

Court for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} LqU-T)-

¶46

One CC to Sri. Sampath^{Prabhakar Reddy, SC FOR GHIVC} [OPUC]

¶47

Two CD Copies

CHR

--l "/'

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/0812020

1 HE 5 T4
U
2 4 Aljc i020
* *
l.l

¶54

ORDER

¶55

W.P.No.9838 of 2020

¶56

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

q./
q,/4

Nanna Umadevi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanna Umadevi 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

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kanchu Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

A.Ranga Reddy Vs the State of Tg

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

Yapachettu Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Ganta Sunith Reddy Vs The State of Telangana