Dismissed

C.Balraju v. The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Telangana HC22 Feb 2021WP/4109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the respondent Grampanchayat's demolition of a portion of his property without issuing a show-cause notice as illegal and unconstitutional, seeking a direction to refrain from interfering with his possession.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

C.Balraju Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

IVIONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4109 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

C. Balraju, S/o. C. Aashanna, Aged 44 years, Occ. Business, F7o. Plot no.B3 south part, Sy.No. 209 of Gayathri Nagar-ll situated at Abdullapur Village and Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...pETlIoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Grampanchayat, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The MPDO, Abdullapurmet Grampanchayat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Abdullapurmet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleased to} isSue Writ, order or direction more^particularjy one^{in the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus} declaring the action of the respondents in^{interferingwith petitionersproperty} admeasuring 200 Sq.yds, bearing^plot no.83^{south part, in Sy'No' 209 of Gayathri} Nagar-ll situated at Abdullapur Village and Grampanchayat,^{AbdullapurmetRevenue} Mandat, Ranga Reddy District without issuing^{any showcause noticeas being illegal,} arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently^{direct the respondentsnot to interfere} with Petitioner^{peaceful possession} and^{enjoymentof the above mentionedproperty.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 F 2021

¶19

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleased to directthe} Respondents not to interfere with the^{petitioners property admeasuring 200 Sq.yds,} bearing^plot no,83 south^{part, in Sy.No.209 of Gayathri Nagar-ll situated at} Abdullipur Village and Grampanchayat,^{Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal,Ranga} Reddy District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{N. KRISHNA SUMANTH} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.2 & 3: SRIG. NARENDERREDDY,} SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶22

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

¶23

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.41O9 of 2O2L

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶28

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's property bearing plot No.83, South Part, in Survey No.209 of Gayathri Nagar-II, situated at Abdullapur Village and Grampanchayat, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring 2OO sq. yards, without issuing any show cause notice as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner is the owner of land to an extent of 400 sq. yards in Plot No.83 in the above mentioned Survey Number. Out of the 400 sq. yards, the petitioner purchased 200 sq. yards from his vendor 06.0l.2O2l and constructed a compound wall and two rooms and has been staying in the said property peacefully.

¶30

While so, on 15.02.2021 the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have demoiished the compound wa11 and part of the property of the vendor of the petitioner without issuing any notice to him and that when the petitioner requested respondent Nos.2 to 4 as to why they are interfering with the property, they informed that Mr.Ramesh Reddy, who is retired employee, filed a complaint.

¶31

¶32

)

¶33

On perusal of the entire record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is premature one and there is no cause of action is arises for the petitioner to file this petition. Though the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to fiie suit before the civil Court for appropriate relief, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition, shall

¶36

stand closed.

¶37

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTIO OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

One CC to Sri N. Krishna Sumanth Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Grampanchayat, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. touTl

¶41

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

¶42

Two CD Copies

¶43

s11l $.'-

HIGH COURT

DATED:.2210212021

ORDER

WP.No.4109 ol 2021

i&
I (
I
0 9 t4Afr ?02t
It

¶49

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

o<br>

C.Balraju v. The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Balraju 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

Jadhav Upender Vs The State of Telangana

Sanoberulla Khan Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Telangana and 6 Others

M/s. Abhaya Man Power Contract Suppliers and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Nagulapalli Durgaiah and 19 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Vodamputti Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others