Allowed

D.Ramachander and Another v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Nov 2021WP/27601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC at the admission stage. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of GHMC not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of residential properties or to demolish them.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties and not to demolish them.

D.Ramachander and Another Vs The State of Telangana… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S] r",; ;;,;,r6,I5i ;oi ]5i3ji f,ili A r H^yD E RAB AD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE i oir.iD&i,rJffi l,f.to,V?1f..

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITIONN .27 601 F2 21

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 3.#,T51]3#,",1a:/,.o',r,il*,Agfi: fl1,#3:'d,?f,8,,1#,,.il81"J,:i_y"?:,#sa,;

¶8

2 A.Pochamma, W/o.Narsiml" J a i ra m n a g a r, o io j"di i ii Lii i^j'v,irt& :3,If; 8 1.,; P,.,.r 5;5:i h ff ##ir,:: :l:

¶9

AND

¶10

1' The state of reranoana,,R!p by its principar secretary (Municipar Administration and Urban Deverorimeni), i6dn's;; diiiE, bEEr"trriat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The commissionrir. Gr5ater Hva"i"uJJ'rrrr-r"""ilcipar corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hvderabad.

¶12

The Dy. commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, euthbuilapur, circle-25' Hyderabad

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in demolishing house as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutio na I and consequenfly to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the house in admeasuring 148 Sq. Yards.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners Houses bearing No.8-6-271 and 2-6-272, Old No.8-6 and 8-7 in Sy. No.2'1 7 admeasuring 148 Sq. yards situated at Jayaramnagar, Quthbullapur, GHMC Limits Hyderabad till the disposal of this writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI CHATLA MADHU, S.C. FOR G.H.M.C.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE^{HONOURABLE Sru JUSTICEK' LAKSTIMAN} RIT^{PETITIoNNo,2'l 601ot202l}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

and Mr.^Chatla counsel^{for the Petltloners} Heard^learned Madhu,^{leamed Standing Counselappearingfor respondent Nos.2} and 3.^{With their consent, this writ petitionis disposed of' at the} admission^{stage itself'}

¶24

The^{petitionersclaim that they are the absoluteowners and} possessors of^{housesbearingNos'8-6-271 and2-6-272' Old Nos'8-6} and 8-7, in^{SurveyNo.217, admeasuring 148 sq' yards'situatedat} Jayaramnagar, Quthbullapur,^{GHMC Limits, Hyderabad' They are} claiming right^{over the said property by virtue of assignmentpattas} issued by the^Tahasildar, Quthbullapur^{Mandal, vldeorders dated} 30.08.2015 ancl^{20.10.1995respectively. ln proof ol the same,the} petitioners have filed copies^{of the said pattacertificates'}

¶25

According to Mr. S. Janardhan^{Goud, learned counsel fbr the} petitioners, the said^{patta certificates are intact and they were not} cancelled as on^{today.Even then, respondentNos'2 and 3 are trying} to dispossess the^{petitionersfrom the subjectpropertyand also trying} to demolish the same,^{without followingdue procedurelaid down} under law.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr.Chatla^{Madhu,leamed StandingCounsel} for responrlent Nos.2 and 3, on^{instructions, would submit that} respondent Nos.2 and 3 never^{interfered with the possession of the}

¶27

¶28

¶29

petitioners over the subject properly and they never tried to demolish the same as alleged in the writ affidavit.

¶30

In view of the said subrnissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the above said house properties and not to demolish.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. No

¶32

order as to costs.

¶33

SD/-K.AMMAJI

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal secretary (Municipal Administration and Urban Development), ^^{State of Telangana, TelanganaSta.te, Secretariat,Hyderabad.} 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipdl Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3. The Dy-._Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, euthbullapur, Circle-25, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, Advocate IOPUC]

¶35

To,

¶36

Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban D<ivelopment, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Chatla Madhu, S.C. for G.H.M.C. (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies.

B. One Spare Copy.

[/P

/,)dk *{!

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0511112021

ORDER

WP.No.27601 of 202'l

1 $E 514 .ci
(
d 1g ttovzoal
-*
I
DE.s p4

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

ttV
\6<br>4$-

D.Ramachander and Another v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ramachander and Another v. The State of Telangana and 2 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

Sri. Tunuguntla Venkata Ravi Krishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another

Dacha Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Veera Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

M Shoba Vs State of Telanagna and 2 others

Bothala Bapuraju Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others