Dismissed

Smt. Koduri Nagamani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC30 Dec 2021WP/20505/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a housewife against several state officials and a neighbor regarding unauthorized construction on her land. The court noted a notice dated 27.02.2020 warned the builder to stop and threatened action under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act. The petition was dismissed without costs and pending petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; the existing notice was placed on record and the petition was disposed of without costs.,

Smt. Koduri Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S AT HYDEIfJiDOF^TELANGANA (Special Originat ju;s-diction)

¶2

THURSDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY Oil;

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT^pETtTtON NO: 20505 OF 2021

¶7

Smt. Koduri Naqamani. W/o.K.S.N. Murthy. Aged 61 years, occ_ house wife r/orHNo 4-21 and +-2ttA Covt. Hos-pitii-noZO.'Vru"n'j,rirprram (V and IVI) rVutusu

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

1 The State of relanoana. Rep. by its princrpar Secretary panchayat raj and Rurar Development De pirtment, Secri:ta riat, Hyiuiu-Urtl'-'' 2 Ihe commissioner, Panchayatraj and Ruiar Deveropment Department state of .) Telangana At Himayathnagdr, Hyderabad The District Collect6r, Muhjqu Di6trict at Muluou.

¶11

4 The District Panchayat Officer, Ir4ulugu Districi at [V]uluqu. 5 lhe lahasildar, Venkatapuram (M) IMulugu District. : C) The Gramapanchayat Vdnkataplram, veikatapuram (V and M) Ir4ulugu District, Rep. by its Secretary. 7 The Superintendent of Police, IVulugu District at Mulugu. BI The Station House Officer, Venkatapuram police stati6n, At Venkatapuram. Bethamcherla Venkateswalu, S/o not known to the petitioner Aged 6b years, occ- Money lending business, r/o H.No.4-28 and 6-tl5 Main roai, Ven(atapuram

¶12

(v and tv) It'4uluou District

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased} to iSSue Writ, order or direction^{preferablyWrit of Mandamus declaringthe inaction} of the respondent nos. 4 to 8^{in takingaction on the unauthorized construction} activity being commenced by the^{respondentno.9 in the propertyof the petitioner} i.e. appurtenant space of house^bearing no^{4-21 and 4-211A situatedat} Venkaiapuram (V and M) Mulugu^{District, despite representation dl.16l9l2020} as illegal, arbitrary, and violative^{of principtesof natural justice and consequently} direct the respondent nos. 2 to 8^{not to allow any constructionactivity by the} respondent no.9 in the said 3^{feet land of the petitionerand also remove} unauthorized constructions^{alreadymade in the said land.}

¶15

IA NO 1 0F 2021

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High court may be pleased to d.irect} ihe respondent^nos. )^{to B to stop the unauthorized construction activity of the} respondent no.9^{carrying at 3 feet land of the petitioner appurtenantsnl9e-} ]n^the house bearing nos.^{+-Zi and 4-211A situatedat Venkatapuram(V and tr/ ) l'4ulugu} oltiilt, ov JtJposing^{of the representation dt.16/9/2020 submittedby the petitioner,} pending dlsposal of the Writ^{Petitionin the interest of justice'}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR} Corns"ffortheRespondentNos.'t,2&4:GPFORPANCHAYATRAJANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶18

Counset forthe^{Respondent Nos'3& 5: GP FORREVENUE} Corn""f for^{the Respondent No'6:SRI C' KALYANRAO'}

¶19

SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'7 & 8: GP FOR HOME} Corn""f for^{the Respondent No'9:SRl R'R'KALYAN} ihe Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶21

THE^{HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KUMAR} Writ^P etiti^{onNo.2OSO5of202t}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard^{learnedcounselfor the petitioner'learned} Government^{Pleader forPanchayat Raj appearing for} respondents^{l, 2, & 4,and Sri C'Kalyan Rao' learned} Standing^{Counsel appearingfor 6th respondent'}

¶24

This writ^{petition is filed aggrievedby the inaction of} respondents 4^{to B against the unauthorizedconstruction} being undertaken^{by 9th respondent'}

¶25

Petitioner contends^{thatthe. 9nrespondent by} encroaching into the^{appurtenantspace of his house bearing} No.s 4-2 1 and 4-2llA situated^{at Venkatapuram Villageand} Mandal, Mulugu District,^{had undertaken unauthorized} construction without obtaining^{any permissionor sanction} from the respondents-authorities.

¶26

On 16.12.2021, learned Government Pleader^appearing for Panchayat Raj has brought to the notice of this Court that though the 9th respondent applied for permission for construction of house, the said application was rejected on the ground that Act I of 1.97 O is in force in Venkatapuram Grampanchayat, being a scheduled area. It was also stated on the said date that the 9th respondent despite his application being rejected, has proceeded with the

¶27

construction illegaJ.ly and that the paachayat Secretary called upon the 9rh respondent not to make further construction.

¶28

Upon the said submission being rnade, this Court directed the learned Government pleader to place before this Court the communication by which the 9th respondent was directed to stop making further construction. 6 Today when the matter is taken up, copy of the notice bearing Gp.No.36 /V / 2O2O dt.27.02.2o20 issued to the 9th respondent is placed before this Court, wherein gth respondent was directed to stop further construction, and informed that necessary action as per the provisions of the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 20iB would be taken.

¶29

The said notice is placed on record. It is needless to mention that if the 9th respondent proceeds with any construction in the subject property without obtaining a valid permission/ sanction from the competent authority, the respondents shall take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

¶30

Subject to the above directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶31

SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// ( U"

¶32

To,

¶33

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶34

1, The Principal Secretary panchayat raj and Rural Development Department, ^^{State^ofTelangana, S5cretariat,'Hvd;r;b;d'--'} z. rne uommlssioner panchayatraj and Rural Development Department State of Telalgana At Himayathnagdr, FliO;raba-d ^ r. .r ne utsrnct Collector, Ivlulugu District at Ir,4uluou. t Ik Pl.lft p_a_nchayat offider, N/utus;'Diiii[Ylt l,lrtrsr. c. tne tahasitdar._Venkatapuram (1,/) Muluou District. - " ,i,il,?;:t5",i?rU^{' GramapanchavatVenkatipuram'Venkatapuram(v and M)}

¶35

The Superintendent of police, tt,4ulugu District at A,4ulugu. B. The Station House officer, V;nk;i;"p;;;'oilil" ,trtinn Ar Venkataouram

:'n'o"nu

HIGH^COURT

DATED,301121202'l

ORDER

WP.No.20505^{of 2021}

¶41

1 sE STA 7c
x
q
:.
oo) 2 4 Jll! 2022 7,
-b
;:.
-:lr

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

I
lt l. l/

Smt. Koduri Nagamani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Koduri Nagamani 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

P.Bharat Bhushan Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited.

Smt. Pendyala Ammaji Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Koya Sudhakara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.K.Sulochana Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, Vs The State of Telangana