Disposed

M. Praneeth v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021WP/24268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed to declare interference by respondent authorities with petitioner's possession of government land illegal. Court closed the petition at admission stage based on written instructions from the Commissioner stating no interference occurred and building permission was legally required for new construction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed at admission stage with no costs to either party.

M. Praneeth Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 24268 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

tvl. Praneeth, S/o. Nageshwer Rao, Aged^{about28 years, Occ Business,} R/o. H.No. L.l.G 189, APIIC Colony, IDA Jeedimetla,^{Medchal MalkajgiriDistrict,} (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District).

¶10

...'ET,T'ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary,lvlunicipel} Administration and-Urban Development^{Department, Secretariat Building'} Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commisdioner and Director^{of Ir/unicipalAdministration Department, 640,} AC Guards, IvlasabTank, Opp^{PTI Building, Hyderabad-500004.}

¶14

The Commissioner, Dundigal^{Municipality, Near Mandal Complex,}

¶15

Gandimvsamma lrilandal,^{Medchal Malkajgiri District-500043}

¶16

The Staiion House Officer,^{DundigalPoli6estation, lt/edchal Malkajgiri District.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue a writ or order,^{orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ} of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of respondentsmore particularlyrespondent} No.3 and 4 in interfering^with the^{peaceful possessionand enjoymentof the} petitioner over of the^plots no 76 and^{77 (old)25 and 38 (new) to an extext of 400} bq. Yards, or 334.4 Sq.^{meters, in SY No 120/35 situatedat Dommara} Pochampally, Village Qutbullapur^{Mandal, tr/edchal Malkajgiri District,(Erstwhile} Ranga Reddy Distiict)^{within the limits of Dundigal Municipalityas being illegal,} arbitiary and' violation^{of article 14 and 300-A of the constitutionof lndia and} conseqlently direct the^{respondent No.3 and 4 not to interfere with peaceful} possession ind enjoyment over of the^{plots no 76 and 77 (old)25 and 38 (new) to} an extent of +00 bq.^{Yards, or 334.4 Sq. meters,in SY No 120/35 situatedat} Dommara Pochampally,^{VillageQutbullapurlr/andal, Medchal MalkajgiriDistrict,} (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District)^{withinthe limits of DundigalIt/unicipality.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} ir," n".ponount No.3^{and 4 not to interferewith the petitioner peacefulpossession} over the^{plots no 76 and 77 (old) 25 and 38 (new)to an extent of} ,nO 4OO "nloyr"nt Sd. Yards, or^{334.4 Sq meters,in SY No 120135 situated at Dommara} pocrramparrv, Village Qutbullapur Mandal, Medchal lr/lalkajgiri^{District, (Erstwhile} Ranga iedOy District)^{withinthe limits of Dundigal tr/unicipality'}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI B. RAMULU}

¶22

counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3: SRI N' PRAVEEN KUMAR'}

¶23

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME}

¶25

The Gourt made the^{following:ORDER}

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION No.24268 of 2O2 1

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3.a respondent. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself.

¶33

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with the peacelul possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plot Nos.76 and77 (old) 25 & 38 (new) to an extent of 400 sq.yards or 334.4 sq.meters in Sy.No.l2Ol35 situated at Dommara Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as iliegal and arbitrary.

¶34

In compliance of the order dated 30.09.2021, Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing counsel appea,ring for the 3'a respondent produced written instructions of the Commissioner, Dundigal Municipality.

¶35

In the . said written instructions, it is specifically mentioned that the iand in Sy.No.l20/35 situated at Dommara Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District is a Government land and that the competent authority is Revenue Department. It is further stated that there is a single room and property tax is also paid. No new construction had taken place. If any further construction is to be taken by the petitioner, he has to obtain building permission under

TS-Bpass. Thus, the 3.d respondent never interfered with the

¶40

subject property.

¶41

Placing the said written instructions on record, this writ petition is closed.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

¶43

closed. No costs.

¶44

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSIS T T REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. One CC to Sri B. Ramulu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

i;; CCs to Gp for^{Municipal Adminidtration and Urban Development,HighCourt} for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.} [OUT]

¶49

One CC to Sri N.^{Praveen Kumar, SC for Municipality,} IOPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP for^{Home, High Courtfor the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD CoPies

¶52

One Spare^CoPY

stxlu..lx

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/11/2021

ORDER

WP.No.24268 ol 2021

,/. 1 ,{E SrAfF
(
q-
:l
I L) 0 i iiltl'!'ft

¶60

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

M. Praneeth v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Praneeth v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs the State of Telangana

Syed Zainul Abedin Vs The Minister for Municipal Administration

Smt. Uke Nagamma Vs The Telangana State Human Rights Commission

B.Lakshmi Reddy,Andanot Vs Ghmc,Commissioner,Hyd,Andanot

Balaji Nagar Plot Onwers Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Asra Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others