Disposed

Mangali Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jun 2021WP/13960/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging threats to demolish petitioners' houses for road widening. The Court accepted submissions that no actual interference had occurred and directed respondents not to interfere with possession except per legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directing official respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject houses except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Mangali Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEA. ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETITION No^{: '13960OF 2021}

¶6

Between: -^- l. - irtinoati Anlanevulu, S/o Late M.Ranghappa, aged about 38 years,^ occ' ii;;i;;;r, il"-l",j'6-n"oov Nigar, Shivaianiially vi'ilage, Rajendranagar circle, R.R.District.

¶7

Z. fi.biinirls, S/o^{B.Anjaiah, agedabout 38 years,Occ- Business, r/o lndra Reddy} - ilaour,'Sr,iuirimpattv vitlagel Rajendranag'ar Circle, R R' District' 3. I\i;i;.' Siil'*-J, !7"'rytond.^{nui'sain, ag6d about 37 vears' occ- Business'r/o} " iil;;h;;Jv njgi'' st''iijiun.,p"llv;ilia$; R'jendranajar - circle' R'R District ...PETITIONERS

¶8

...PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 .TheStateofTelangana,rep,byitsPrincipalsecretary,MunicipalAdministration and Urban Develoflment^{Department' Secretariat'HyderaDao'}

¶11

2 6;;#;iii;;rl"uJi^{r'rrij"i.ip5rctrpoi'ation,Rep bv iis commissioner'TankBund} Hvderabad.

¶12

J Tt;i;iliv Commissioiner,^{GHMcRajendernagar^Circle No'11'R R District'}

¶13

+ii; X;5;iA"itiiv^{prin"ei,'oHMCRajbndernasarcircle' R R'District'} ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to} issueanappropriateWrit,orderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of Mandamus,^{to declare the actionof the respondent authorities in threatening} to demolish the^{houses of the petitioners bearingH.Nos.6-3-'162lP,6-3-1621P11 and} 6-3-152157 situated^{at Katedhan village, Rajendernagarcircle, R.R. District, for road} widening,withoutissuinganynoticeandwithoutfollowingtheprocedure contemplated under^{the statute, as being illegal,arbitrary,un.lustand unconstitutional} and violative of Article^{300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the} respondent authorities^{not to take any coercivesteps without followingthe due} process of Law.

¶15

IAN O: 1 OF 202'l

¶16

Petition under section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to directthe} respondent authorities^{not to demolishor in any manner interfere with the peaceful} possessionandenjoymentofthepetitionersinrespectoftheirrespectivehouses bearing H.Nos.6-3-162tP,^{6-3-162lPll and 6-3-152/57 situatedat Katedhanvillage,} RajendernagarCircle,R.R.District,pendingdisposalofthemainWritPetition. Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. GATTU SRINIVAS}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1:}

¶18

Gp FOR rvrUr,ricrper_^{ADMtNtsTRATtON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶19

counsel for^{the Respondent Nos.2to 4: sRl PASHAM} [[';B[t 3="'"'

¶20

The Court at the^{stageof admissionmadethe foffo)ing'ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.13960 of 2021

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶25

The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents are threatening to demolish the houses of the petitioners situated at Katedhan Village, Rajendranagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of road widening, without following due process of law.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that as of now, the official respondents are not widening the road, and that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners. and in case, they need to do so, they will do it in accordance with law.

¶27

In view of the above made submissions, the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed and the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject houses, except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶28

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI

¶31

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

//TRUE COPY// \// SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To, 1 The Princioal Secretary, lvlunicipal Administration^{and Urban Development} Department, State of^{Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶34

2 in5 Commissioner, GreateiHyderabad^{Municipal Corporation, TankBund} Hvderabad.

¶35

1. i6e Deputy Commissioiner,^{GHMC Rajendernagar CircleNo.1 'l , R.R District'} 4. The Asiistint City Planner,^{GHMCRajenderna-g-arCircle,R.R.District.} One CC to Sri Gattu^{Srinivas, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶36

1. iwo CCs to GP for Municipal^{Administralion and Urban Development,High} Court for the State of^{Telangana at Hyderabqd.IO-UTJ}

¶37

1. One CC to Sri Pasham^{KlJhnaReddy, SC FOR GHMC} [OPUC] t1 Two CD Copies . /-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310612021

ORDER

W.P.No.13960 of 2021

,4' t 6i: SIA ir5-
/.,-"*
.a
:).)
1-J 3 0 i!.ill 2C t)
-a.
I
:..

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS @#6'

Mangali Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Anjaneyulu 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

B.Chandra Prakash Vs The State of Telangana

Bhimanathi Santhosh Vs The State of Telangana

Dokku.Haneesha Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Mahjabeen Sultana Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Mrs. Fouzia Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Sarwar Hussaian Vs The State of Telangana