Partly allowed

P. Naresh Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC30 Nov 2021WP/30191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order addresses a writ petition challenging a notice to demolish structures. The Court observed the notice period was unreasonable. It directed petitioners to file an explanation within seven days and stayed coercive action pending the authority's consideration of the explanation after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file explanation within seven days; coercive action stayed pending further orders after hearing.

P. Naresh Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30191 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Naresh Kumar Reddv, S/o^{Palli LaxmiReddy,Aged about39 years,} Occupation Business, R/d^{ptot No 325/P, Us.h.od3ya} .^Col-o11 -QalutSramaram, Near'UMCC Hospital, Quthbullapur,^{Ranga Reddy District, q0-0055'T.S.}

¶9

Ch. Madhusudari Reddv,^{S/o Ch. Bal Reddy,Aged about36 years, Occupation} Business, Fl/o H. No.^1:721641 ,^{Vokshith Enclave, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur,} Ranga Reddy District, 500055,^T.S.

¶10

e. r-ingisetty v6nxata^{Marutnikumar, s/o_singa Rao Linga_setty,Ag^e^d.about} - +i i,6aii Occupation Private Employee, Fl/o Rumars Villa, Plot No 468, Venus ilil;v;,'eeninb aatali^{Layout,GajularamaramVillage,Quthbullapur,Ranga} Reddy District, 500055' T.S. ...'E,,.NERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Representedby^The Principal Secretary-'DeRl{Lent ot} PanchayatRajand-RuralDevelopment,Secretariat.HvderabaosUUUzgl.s Z. r[e oiiirrct^{pd,ncnavji6nrceiSS';giii;OOvDiskict,Singareddy502001 T.S.}

¶13

il;tra; Gram^{Pan'cnayat, R6presSntedLiy-ThePanchayat Secretary'} - Gummadidala Mandal, Annaram 502313' T'S'

¶14

...RES'.NDENT.

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue a writ, order^{or direction particularlyin the nature of the writ of Mandamus,} declaringtheRespondentNo3,NoticebearingNo2s2l2O2l.02dated0'll0l2o2l. andillegalandtoceaseanddesisttotakeanyactionthereunderincludingthe removalofthethirty.fivecompletedandinhabitedbuildingsandStructures,inPlot Nos.97,^{1OO, 101,102'103, 104, 107, 108 109' 1'10' 111'112'113'114'115'116'} 117, 118, 119,^{120, 135, 142, 143, 144,145,146' 147'148',',149',150',151',152',} 153, 154, and^{155 and four under construction Plot Nos 137' 138' 139' and 140' on} Survey Nos^{199/Al, 199/A2, 199/A3, and 199/A4'in land admeasuring Acres 2 0 G'} inAnnaramVillage,GummadidalaMandal,sangaReddyDistrict'T.S.

¶16

IA o:Petition OF OF 21

¶17

IA o:Petition OF 21^un der Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the aff idavit^{filedin support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto stay all} the demolishing^{activity, under the Notice bearingNo 25212021-02dated 05-10-} 2021. and^{illega I and to cease and desist to take any action thereunder including} the removal^{anddemolitionof the thirty-five completedand inhabited buildingsand} structures^{in Plot Nos. 97'100, 1ol, 102, 103, 104,107, 108' '109' 110' 111' 112'} 113, 114,^{115, 116, 117' 118'11g, 120, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146' 147' 148',} '149, 150,',l51, 152,',153'^{154,and 155 and four underconstruction Plot Nos137'} 138, 139,^{and 140, on SurveYNos 199/A'1 , 199/A2, 1S9/A3, and 199/A4'in land}

¶18

¶19

admeasuring Acres 2.0 G, in Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, sanga Reddy District, T. S.

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 21

¶21

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 preased receive the Exhibits Nos^p-Xr to p-XrX in the matter, being the copres of the receipts of the Layout Regularisation scheme, 2o2o f|ed by the petitioners in the matter. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SAROSH BASTAWALA

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: SRI G. NARENDER REDDyT SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

)r---

¶26

"// /

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶28

wnIT PETITION N0.30191 of 2021

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶31

".. the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction parlicularlv in thc naturc of the v'rit of ntandamus, daclaring lhc respondent No.3, notice bearing No.251i)0) I -0) darul 05- l0-)0) l , and illegal and to ceasc and desist to take an.t' aclion lht'rcunder including tlrc rentot'al of^lhe thirt.'-li'( contplcted ad inhabited buildings^qnd stntclurcs, itt Plot Nos.97, 100. 101,10), 103, 104, 107,^108.109. 110.^111, 112. 113. 114, ll5, 116, 117, 118.^119, 120,^{135,142,143, 144,} 145, 146. 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,^{153, 154 and155 and} .four^{rnderconstnrctionPlot Nos.l37,138,139 and 140,on} Sun'ey Nos.l99/Al, 199/A2,^{199/43and 199/A4,in land} admeasuring Ac.2.0 G, in Annaram^{Village, Gummadidala} Mandal, Sanga Reddy District,^{7.5., and to passsuch other} order or orders as^{this HonourableCourt mdysee} Jit^and expedient in^the facts^{and circumstancesof this matter' h is} further^{prayed that ,his Honourable Court maybe pleased to} stay all the demolishing^{activity, under the Notice bearing} No.252/2021-22 dated^{05-t0-2021,and illegal and to ceaseand} desist to take any action^{lltereunderincludingthe removal and} demolition o.f^the thirty-five^{completed andinhabited buildings} and structurcs. in Plot^{Nos 97, 100, 101' 102, 103, 104'107'} t08. t09, 1t0, tll,112,^{113, 114'115, 116'117' 118, 119' 120.} t35. t42. t4i, 144,^{145.146, 117,148'149,150'151,152'153,} 154 and t55^{und.fourund(r constnrtion PlotNos l37' 138' 139} anrl 140, or;.!rin'r't''rtos.t99/'4t,^{199/''l)'199/'43 and 199/'lfin} land rttlnteostting lc^{2.0 G, in Annaram Village' Gunmadidula} Manclal, Sanga^{Redd.v Distict'TS} ' "^ctc"'

¶32

Heard leamed^{counselfor petitioners, learnedGovernment} Pleader for Panchayat^{Raj appearingfor respondent Nos'1and 2 and} also on behalfofleamed^{Standing Counsel for 3'd respondent'}

¶33

¶34

With the consent of both counsel, the Writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶35

Petitioners contend that they are owners and possessors ofplot Nos.97, 100, l0l, 102, 103, lO4, lO7,l0g, 109, ll0, lll, ll2, ll3, 114, 115, 116, 117,119, l1g, 120, 135, 142, 143,144, 145,146, 147, 148, 149, 150, l5l, 152, lS3,l54 and 155 with 35 houses constructed therein and four under construction houses in plot Nos. I 37, 13g, I 39 and I40 in Survey Nos. 199/Al, lgg/A2, 199/43 and r99/A4, in rand adrneasuring Ac.2.0 G, in Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, having purchased the same tiorn its vendors under registered sale deeds. While that being so, the respondents have issued show cause notice dt.05.10.2021, served on lS_11_2021 directing them to produce necessary pefinissions and plans within two days from the date of receipt of said notices, and that the said time provided to the petitioners is too short.

¶36

Further, it is also contended that respondents without affording sufficient time to the petitioners, are resorting to prespitative action and are seeking to demolish the houses which are already constructed or under construction.

¶37

Per contra, learned Govemment pleader appeirring fbr respondents submits that the impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice issued by 3.d respondent and if the petitioners want turther time to produce the information/documents, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the Authority and seek extension of

¶38

time, which the petitioners failed to do. It is also contended bv the leamed Govemment Pleader that if the petitioners furnishes explanation to the said notices, the respondent-Authorities would consider the same and pass necessary orders^{thereon in accordance} with law.

¶39

'7. Having regard to the submissions made, though the impugned proceedings is only a show^{cause notice, howevertime granted for} filing explanation^{appearsto be unreasonable'Thus' this Court is of} the view that^{petitioners can be directedto file explanationto the said} impugned^{shorv cause dt 05-10-2021withina periodol seven (07)} days frorn^{the date ot receipt of copyof this order along with all the} docunrentswlrichpetitionersintendstor.elyuponinsuppor.toltheir pleas. Upon^{the petitioners iiling the explanationto tl.reimpugned} notice^{as directed above' the respondents shali considerthe same and} pass orders^{in accordance with 1aw after granting opportunity of} hearing^{to the petitioners and communicatethe same to the} petitioners.

¶40

Pending^{adjudication oftheshow causenotices'the respondents} shall^{not take anycoercive actionagainst the petitioners'} g. Subject^{to the abovedirections'the Writ Petitionis disposedof'} No costs.

¶41

itions,^{if an} shal I stand^closed. l0 Pending^{miscellan eous} S AS3,!li^I1'llt\s,'ryX"J Ar/ //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, ilrudfti':f:Tfr11lj$tr#;tl,iffffi^{'#";'"'l#-;:::} s'ia'ie'r

¶43

- "e

¶44

I^{gffiiliffi tr' Hfl :"J"J:::T;ilffi ;'}

MBC

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^3011112021

{ rr (: J 7r
\ os
+
oo5 g 7 DEC?0?1 lil7
,/
t].;
ORDER

¶49

WP.No.3O191 o12021

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶51

WITHOUT COSTS,

¶52

Yrt*

P. Naresh Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Naresh Kumar Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Ayub Vs The State of Telangana

Boddu Sadesh Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s. Hanuman Road Lines Vs Government of Telengana

M/s. Venkateshwara ginning and Pressing Mill Vs T.S state Financial Corporation Karimnagar Branch

M/s. Venkateshwara Ginningand Pressing Mill Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation Karimnagar Branch

Chanda Jagadishwar Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited