Disposed

D. Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2021WP/12551/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Writ Petition regarding alleged illegal construction of a crematorium on petitioner land at the stage of admission based on the disclosures made by counsel for the Municipality regarding an existing cemetery and the specificity of claims.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition under Article 226 and the Miscellaneous Petition under Section 151 CPC were disposed of at the stage of admission without costs.

D. Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:12551 OF 2021

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

D. Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about^{50 years, Occ.} Agriculture, Fl/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy Districl}

¶9

D. Kanthi Reddy, S/o.Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 52^years,Occ. Agriculture, FVo.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally^trr'landal, Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶10

D. Damodar Reddy, S/o.Ramchandra^{Reddy,Aged about} 50^years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶11

D, Verm Reddy, S/o.Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about^{48 years, Occ. Agriculture,} F/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally NIandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Smt. D. Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.Late Padma^{Reddy,Aged about55 years,Occ.} Agriculture, Rl/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶13

D. Venkat Reddy, S/o.Kista Reddy, Aged about 50^{years,Occ. Agriculture,} Rl/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

D. Boji Reddy, S/o.Kista Reddy, Aged about 48^{years,Occ. Agriculture,} Rl/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

B. D. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o,Kista Reddy,^{Aged about 48 years,Occ.} Agriculture, R/o.Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

1 The State of Telangana, Rept.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Lakidakapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Shankarpally Municipality, Rept. by its Commissioner, at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District

¶20

...RES'.NDENT'

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF I,{ANDAMUS to declare the action of the Respondents especially Respondent No.3 and 4 in proceeding with the construction of Vaikuntadamam (crematorium) or burial ground in the land of the Petitioners in Sy.No.51 and 52 to an extent of Ac.02,00 gts., situated at Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal / Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and null and void and violation of the article 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia as well as the violation of the principles of natural^justice, consequently direct the Respondents not to proceed with the construction of the Vaikuntadamam in the land of the Petitioners.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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 No.3 and 4 not to proceed with the construction of the Vaikuntadamam

¶24

(crematorium) or burial^ground in^{the land of the Petitioners in Sy.No.51 and 52 t0 an} extent of Ac.02.00^{gts., situated at Fathepurvillage, Shankarpally Mandal/} Municipality, Ranga^{Reddy District pending'finalizationof the writ petition.}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRIJ. KANAKAIAH} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 3: GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI N. PRAVEENKUMAR'} SG FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court at the Stage^{of admissionmadethe following:ORDER}

¶26

l.HE rroN'BI Ir Slu JUSTICIt A.ABIIISHEK ItEDDy

¶27

It'ltl'f PE'IITION No.12551 of 2021

¶28

oRI)IIt:

¶29

I leard the lean-iccl counsel for thc petitioners, the learned Gol'crnment I'leacler for Revenue for respondent Nos.l to 3, and Sri N. Praveen l(urrrar', the learnt:d Standing Counsel for NIr,r nicipa lities for r-r'sporident No.4, Witir iheir conscnt, the Writ Petition is c-lisposed of at the staBe of aci tttrsvLon.

¶30

Ihis writ petitiorr is filed seekirrg a writ of mnndntltts declaring the action of the respor-rclctrts, more^pa rtictrlarly,^{respondentNos'3} ;, ,.i -l rn plocilcilnrlj ru i'.lt '.lrr-' i'orliititr(.i.i)r1 of^{Va il<untada Inant} (t.r','rnatorium) or buriirl gt'ound in the lancl oi the^{petitiorlel's,to an} extcnt ol Ac.2.00 !lLrn[as, situatedⁱⁿ Surr.zev Nos.Si^{arrd 52 oi} Fa tht pr.rr Vi I la ge, Shankarpally Mandal/ Municipality, Ranga^{Red dy} Di-(trict, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

'I he learned Standing Oounscl, basecl on the written i;rstrLrctions receir"oti llottr thc rQsponal(rill^{No.4, has statedthat a} cr'r'llr,rtior-r _r arcl is t'xi:tt:t1; ,tr^r-lrt: larrtl .i'..ll11(',isuling^{Ac.0 17 gulltasin} Sulr,,',' No.50 oi [r.rtJ-ri:Put Villar]c, Sharrk.irpallr'^{Mandal,but rro} t1t'r'cloprncnt r.r'orl<s tlcrc Lal<r'n ttp. No"'v,^{iheof ficial respondcnts} ;rrr' ial<irrg ste ps io rl,'r i'li;1-r th(l -lorllntit)1.r^{l'ard. lht'le'arrrt:d} ,et.rirtlrttrl^(-otrrrsc'l lr,rs^{iurlh<'rsi"rLc,-lthat tllc' c-letailsof thc saicl} cr'.:r.tt;rtiott I'arcl at e^{trtortli<lrtccl iilthc rer.'t''nuerecords irli:luding} i,)h;rf,mi i)()rtai. L,r.ttrrt'.1^{Strrtrelit-tl',(--ot-ti.tst'lhas specificallirstatc'd}

¶32

¶33

that the^{land claimed by the petitioners is in survey Nos'51 and 52} and adiacent^{to the cremationyardand that both the landsare being} separated^{bY a} Pit^(Guntha)'

¶34

made^{b1' the lea rnecl} ln view^{of the sPecificasserttons} s t.r n^{cl s rt'c1rt'ssc tl} Standing^{Counsel,the grievanceof the petitioners} and the^{writ petitionis accorclingly disposed of'}

¶35

The miscellaneous Petitions^{pending' ifani" shallstar-rt1}

¶36

closetl.^{Thereshall be no oLderas to costs}

¶37

//TRUE^COPY// ^.38'ii,S[lB][FItHsEcTloN^drrtceR

¶38

to'',. .fna Principal Secretary' Revenue Department'^{State of Telangana'Secretariat'}

¶39

iil#fi,nl[ilmtftH'#:I,[l$[i{r$fr?l}i'#*x'{''$::'

¶40

;il;^{ffi ::r r,,} ", t *!|*tl'',-'t:#:i'='**r: sm ./ ,f

HIGH^COURT

DATED:09/06/2021

ORDER

L S rA I.c
1
,<br><br>c
O " 1$ JUII 20t1
\ \ l

¶46

WP.No.12551^of202'l

¶47

DISPOSING^{OF THEWP}

¶48

AT THE^{STAGE OF ADMISSION}

¶49

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶50

<1-'

D. Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Janardhan Reddy 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

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Basheer Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sundeep Gupta Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nagma Fatima Vs The State of Telangana

G.Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

K.S.R.Srinivas Vs The Manikonda Municipality