Disposed

Kurma Yadagiri v. Gram Panchayat

Telangana HC2 Feb 2021WP/2141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition and petition under S. 151 CPC challenging the Gram Panchayat's proposed house demolition. Directing both parties to issue notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st Respondent to issue notice to petitioner and afford opportunity of hearing before passing appropriate orders.

Kurma Yadagiri Vs Gram Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'I AT- HYDERfJSDOF^TELANGANA (special original Jurisdiction)

¶3

ruEf,?Ay_IlE sECoND DAy oF FEBRUARy rwo rHousAND AND TwENTiAN;^,.,

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PE TITION NO :2141 OF 2021

¶8

Kurma Yadagiri. Sio I,4allaiah, Aged about. 23 C h i ttoj i pa I I y Vi I Ia g e, C h e g u nta t t j nOaT, rr,,t eO J[ O*isti. ci years, Occ. Agriculture, ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Gram, Panchayat, Chittojipally Village, Chegunta lrrlandal, IVledak District, Rep. by its Secretarv

¶11

The Tahsrldar, Chejunta I\4andal, I\iledak District

¶12

"^{:,^1u:1 ,l9t:nSana,panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad,} Kep. oy tts Secretary to Government.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may ie pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the naiure of writ of IVANDAN/us declaring the action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Gram panchayat, chittojipally Village, chegunta tr,4andal, IVedak District, rep.by its Secretary in undertaking the exercise of demolishing the house of the petitioner in Sy.No. 7041142EE situated at Ibrahimpur Village, Hamlet of chittojipaily, chegunta lr/andal, lr/edak District, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law, one without Jurisdiction, in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶15

lA NO:^'1 OF 2021

¶16

Petitlon under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DTRECT the 1st respondent i.e., the Gram Panchayat, Chittojipally Village, Chegunta l,4andal, lVedak District, rep.by its Secretary not to demolish the house belonging to the petitjoner in Sy.No.7041142EE situated at lbrahimpur Village, Hamlet of Chittojipally, Chegunta [r,4andal, lt4edak District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY,

¶19

SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE^SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI} v.P. .2141. ol2^21,

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is being^{disposed of at the admission} stage with the consent^{of bothparties.}

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking^{the followingrclief:}

¶27

-.......to issue a r.r,rit, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the l''} respondent i.,e the Gmm Panchayat, Chittojipally^{Village,Chegunta} Mandal, Medak District, rep by its Secretaryⁱⁿ undertaking^the exercise of demolishing the house of the^petitioner in Sy.No. 704ll42EE situated at lbrahimpur Village, Harnlet of Chittojipally, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, as bad illegal, arbitrary. opposed to law, one without^jurisdiction in gross violation of^principles of naturaljustice and pass such other order or ordcrs as this Coun deerrs fit and proper."

¶28

Heard Sri M.Vidya Sagar, leamed counsel appearing for t}re petitioner, leamed Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, Leamed C'oremment Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent No.3, and Sri G.Narender Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶29

The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1.0175 guntas situated at Ibrahimpur Village, H/o Chittojipally, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, and he has purchased the said prope(y by way of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, he has constructed a house therein. His grievance is that without following due process of law, the 1" respondent is trying to demolish the house of the petitioner. In those set of circumstances, he filed the present writ petition.

¶30

¶31

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the respondents may be directed to issue notice to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Leamed Standing Counsel appearing for the 1,, respondent has contended that before initiating any further action against the petitioner, the 1" respondent would follow due process of law.

¶33

Having considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel forthe respective parties, this C.ourt is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of dirccting the l, respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and afur affording an opporoinity to him, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, if the petitioner really deviated any of the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act in constructing the house.

¶34

Accordingly, the^\Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall sLrnd closed.

¶36

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANTREGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// 6Ib

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chittojipally Village, Chegunta lVlandal, l,4edak District.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Chegunta l,4andal, lVedak District

¶40

The Secretary to Government, State of Telangana, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

One CC to Sri l\rl. Vidyasagar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Grampanchayat, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies

s11.)

HIGH COURT

DA'lED:0210212O21

ORDER

WP.No.2141 ol 2021

\lx
1 i FEB 202t z

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

It
2
/

Kurma Yadagiri v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurma Yadagiri v. Gram Panchayat

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

Esampelli Ravindar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Rayapaneni Maheshwar Naidu Vs Canara Bank

Gangarapu Venkataramana Vs Union of India and Another

K.Raja Rao , Jupally Raja Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sana Educational Society Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Pamulati Shreya Vs The Registrar (Admin) Ignou