Dismissed

S. Sunanda v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC1 Oct 2021WP/24506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Hyderabad dismissed a writ petition challenging a municipality's arbitrary mutation order. The Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties (defendants in a pending civil suit for partition) without going into the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties without costs.

S. Sunanda Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 24506 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

S. Sunanda, W/o S. Gopal Reddy,^{Aged About 45 Years, Occ.Housewife,} Rio EWS-7, APIIC Colony, lDA, ieed-imetla^{Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.}

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secrelary, Municipal Administration} a nd U rban Develo^piment Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶10

ihe Gandi Maisamma^- Dundigal^{Municipality,Repby its Commissioner,Near} Hi1anoit Comptex, Gandimaisa-mma^{Mandal, iVedchal- Malkajgiri District, (Greater} Hyderabad lt/unicipal Corporation).

¶11

...RES'ONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} have Judicial review of arbitrary^{act of respondent No.2, of its say,that, Respondent} No.2 shall not order for^{notice, if any applicationis Placed by offered vendor, for} mutation, in correlation^{of Propertyfailing in Survey Nos.733,325, 190'191 , 192,} 659, 669 and 670 of Bowrampet^{(v) Quthbullapur ( M) RR District, more fullylineated} in the Plaint, by invoking its^{unfettered/unbridled Power Under arlicle 226 ol} constitution of lndia and^{issue a rule of Nisi of writ More Particularly in the Natureof} ltrlandamus or command or any^{other order and orders, by holding such arbitrary act} of respondent No.2 as^{unconstitutionaI, as same is in violationof article'14 and 300 A} of constitution of lndia and^{inco nseq uentiallydirect respondentNo.2 to act on} petitioner representation Dated 13/09/2021,^{Pursuantto law'}

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto direct} respondent No.2 to the^{writ Petition, not to orderfor any Mutationwithout Priornotice,} in correlation of Property^{failing in. Survey Nos.733, 325, 190, 191,192,659,66S &} 670 of Bowrampet^(V) Quthbullapur^{(lr/) RR District,morefully lineated in thePIaint,} till the disposal of Writ^Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.M' RATHANSINGH}

¶16

Counsel for the ResPondent^{No.1 :}

¶17

GP FOR MUN.CIPAL^{ADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶19

SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶20

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶21

¶22

THE I{ONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE^{K. T,AKSIIMAN}

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.24506 oF²⁰²¹

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the^action ol^the or respondent No.2 in enterlaining the mutation^application construction permission with regard to^{land in Sy.Nos.733, 325, 190,} 191, 192, 659, 669 & 670 of Borvrarrpet (V), Quthbulapur^(M), Ranga Reddy District, without fbllowing the due^process of^law,as illegal and arbitrary

¶26

Heard learned counsel fbr the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for^respondent No.1 and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing^{Counsel fbr} respondent No.2.

¶27

A perusal of the record would reveal that the^{petitioner has} filed O.S. No.34l of 2015 against the delendants therein^{fbr partition} and separate possession of the suit schedule^properlies therein. She has filed I.A .No. I of 2015 to restrain the defendants^{therein from} changing the nature of properly and also alienating the said^propefty duling pendency ofthe said suit.

¶28

According to Mr. M.Rathansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the said I.A. and the suit are pending. There are no interim orders in the said LA. No.1 of 2015. Even then, the det'endants to the suit are trying to alienate the property in favour of third^parties during

¶29

)

¶30

pendency of the suit and therefore, their action is hit by doctrine of /is pendens. The prospective purchasers are approaching the respondent No.2 with a request to mutate their names in the Municipal records. Thc respondent No.2, without fbllowing the due procedure laid down undcr larv, lray rrutatc the names of the prospective purchasers in the Municipal records

¶31

A perusal of the record would furlher reveal that the petitioner has not made the defendants in the said suit as parlies to the present writ petition. According to this Court, the defendants in the said suit are necessary pafties to this writ petition. Therefore, on the ground ol non-joinder of necessary parlies, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Therefbre, without going into the merits ol the case, this writ petition is drsrnissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending il any, shall stand disntissed.

¶33

¶34

To,

¶35

SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIST ,TRUE COPY//

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

1 9n" QQ^{to SritVl.Rathan Singh,Advocate} IOPUCI 2 Two ccs to Gp for [\irunicinar"Admrnistraiioh inoiirban Deveropment, High Court_for the State of Tetarigana at rf yoeraiiio. ibuii' 4 Two One CD CC to CooiesSri N.^praveen kumri, S6io, Haini.lirjiii!. tOpUCl 5 One Spare bopy CHR "$\r

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11012021

ORDER

W.P.No.24506 of 2021

1 6e STA?t
o)g
23 ost?fl?l
..,,^
..a! ;i
|;;.qo"'t(

¶43

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

\1,<br>taw

S. Sunanda v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sunanda v. The State of Telangana and Another

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

Sri Chaitanya Builders Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chaitanya Builders Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Anjani Port land Cement Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

G. Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gogu Yadhamma Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

M/s Bakul Apartments Owners Association Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others