Disposed

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2021WP/13088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the action of the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2) in allegedly interfering with his peaceful possession. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without following due process of

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of at admission stage; directed official respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession without following due process of law.

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13088 OF 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary, S/o.^Mukundam, -Aged about 71 years, Occ- Retired Employee^{(Teache0, Rlo.H.No.3-7-884,} Vavilalapally, Near Vivekananda Degree College, Karimnagar^{District- 505001.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Municipal Administration} and Urban Development Departhent,^{Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.}

¶11

Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rep. by^{its Commissioner,Karimnagar,} Karimnagar District.

¶12

J. Tiparthv Aravind Kumar, S/o. Late^{Bhaskar, Aged about 38 years,Occ-} G6vernment Employee^(DMHO), R/o.^{H.No.3-7-886, Vavilalapally' Near} Vivekananda Degree College, Karimnagar District^{- 505001.}

¶13

4 T.Chakradhar, S/b. Late Bhakara Chary,^{Aged about 35 years, Occ- Business,} Rio. H.No.3-7-886, Vavilalapally, Near^{Vivekananda Degree College, Karimnagar} District-sosoo1 '

¶14

...RESP.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a writ, order or direction, more^{particularly in the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus,} declaring the action of the Respondent^{No.2 in interfering with the PetitionersHouse} Bearing Nos.3-7-884 and No.3-7-884/1 in^{Sy.No.13'lB and 1340 situated at} Vavilalapally, Near Vivekananda Degree College,^{Karimnagar District at the instance} of the Respondent No.3 and 4 without any^{notice, without followingdueprocess of} law as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and^{violativeof Principles of Naturaljustice} and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of^{the lndia and consequently} restrain the Respondent No.2 from interfering^{with the Petitioners possessionand} enjoyment of the House Bearing Nos.3-7-884 and^{No.3-7-88411in Sy.No.1318and} 1340 situated at Vavilalapally, Near Vivekananda Degree^{College,Karimnagar} District.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased to directthe} Respondent No.2 to restrain from interfering with the^{Petitioners possession and} enjoyment of the House Bearing Nos.3-7-884 and No.3-7-884/1ⁱⁿ Sy.No.131B^and 1340 situated at Vavilalapally, Near Vivekananda Degree^{College,Karlmnagar} District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. K. KIRAN MAYEE

¶18

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

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. SAWAM^{REDDY, SC FOR KMC} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4:---The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

'tHE HON'Bt.[ SI{l IUSTICE A.ABHIS}IEK REDDY l 'llI'I PL'IITION No.13088 ot]qzl

¶21

OIiDEII:

¶22

lleard the learnecl counsel^{for the petitioner, the learned} Government Pleader [or Municipal^{AcL-ninistrationand Urhan} Development for respondent^{No.1 and Sri V Satyam Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel^{for respondent No.2. With theirconsent, the Writ} Petition is disposed of^{at the stage of admissionitself.}

¶23

In this writ petition, the^{petitioneris questioningthe action of} tht respondent No.2 in trying to^{interferewith her peaceful} possession in respect of the house^{bearing Nos.3-7-884and} 3-7-854/1,, in Survey No.l318^{& 1340,situated at Vavilalapally, Near} Vivekananda Degree College, Karimnagar^{District,at the instance of} respondent Nos.3 and 4, w.iihor-rt^{followingdue processof law.}

¶24

Learned Standing^(iounsel, on instructions,^{states thatthe} official respondents arc' not interfering^{with the possession of the} petitioner, and in r:ast', arry complaint^{is filed against him, they will} take action in accordance with law

¶25

I taving lcgatcl lo llre airove made^{submissions, n'ithout going} into the merits or dcmc'rits of the case,^{thc writ petitionis disposecl} of directing the official respondents not to^{interfere with the} possession of the petitioncr without^{l'ollorvingclue process of lalv} I ir>rvever, it is t-narlc i:k:ar that irr cast' any^{complaintis tnaclc against}

¶26

¶27

the petitioner, the official respondents shall^{put him on notice,call}

¶28

for an explanation and afford an opportunity of hearing, and^then

¶29

take necessary action against the petitioner.

¶30

The miscellaneous petitions pending, it any, shall stand

¶31

closed. There sl-ra1l be no ordel as to costs

¶32

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

SECTI N OFFICER

¶35

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶37

One CC to M/s. K. Kiran Mayee, Advocate [OPUC]

¶38

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

¶39

One CC to Sri V. Satyam Reddy, SC for KN/C, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

One Spare Copy. sm .H

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.13088^{of 2021}

¶46

1H g 9TA r{:
q
I ( z\ <br>si<br>t
J
(.)
18 ilill2o21 :)
\ '/
-....--

¶47

DISPOSING^{OF THE WP} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶48

o s&'

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary 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

Smt. Nagma Fatima Vs The State of Telangana

G.Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

D. Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ziauddin Hussany Vs The state of Telangana

Lakkam Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana and Another