Dismissed

Srinivas Sajjanapu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Jun 2021WP/4831/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inaction regarding illegal construction near petitioner house disposed of. Court found no new construction and grievance redressed, directing authorities to act strictly in law if new unauthorized structures arise.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; grievance redressed; authorities directed to act in law if new unauthorized constructions are made.

Srinivas Sajjanapu Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4831 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Srinivas Sajjanapu, S/o Venkata chary, Aged about 46^years, Occ. Service, R/o.H.No. 7-3-121, Bazar Area, Bellampalli, Mancherial district, Telangana^- 504251...pETlTtONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Bellampalli Municipality, Bellampalli,^{Mancherial, Telangana.}

¶13

The tvlandal Revenue Officer, Bellampalli Mandal, Mancherial^District,

¶14

Telangana.

¶15

Kandukuri Shankara Moorthy, S/o Rajaiah Aged about^{46 years, Occ. Business,} Rl/o. H.No.7-3-1 28, Bazar Area, Bellampalli Mancherial district,^Telangana- 504251

¶16

Kandukuri Prasad, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 44^yearc, Occ. Business,^RL/o.H.No.

¶17

7-3-128, Bazar Area, Bellampalli Mancherial district, Telanga.L.h?%033*o=n ra

¶18

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia^praying that in^the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more^{particularlyin the nature of} writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents,^{more particularly} Respondent No.2, in not acting on the representation dated.^{03.01.2020 made by the} petiiioner, as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstituiion al and consequently direct the^1"t and^2nd respondents to remove the illegal construction made by the^4'n and^{5'n respondent} from the passage and clear the entrance to the^petitioner house

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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^{issue interim} directions directing the 2nd Respondent to remove the^illegal construction^{made by} the 4th and Sth respondent from the^passage and clear the entrance to the^petitioner house pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.LAKSHMAN GOUD

¶22

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

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶24

S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶28

\IIRI T PETITION No. 4831 of2O2L

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner, learnedGovernment} Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban^{Development for} respondent No.1, ald Sri N.Praveen Kumar,^{learned Standing Counsel, for} respondent No.2, and learned Govemment^{Pleader for Revenuefor} respondent No.3. With their consent, the Writ Petition^is disposed^{of at the} stage of admission itself.

¶31

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.2 in considering^the representation made by the petitioner on 31.01.2020 complaining the^illegal constructions being made by the unofficial respondents, the^presentwrit petition is filed.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the authorities have inspected the subject premises and found that there are no new constructions being made by the unofficial respondents, as a-lleged by the petitioner. Learned Starding Counsel has also stated that the constructions which are in existence are almost 30 to 40 years old and in case any unauthorized new constructions are being made, the authodties will take necessaql action, as^{per law.}

¶33

Having regard to the above made submission, the^grievance of the petitioner stands redressed aIId accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that in case any new unauthorized constructions are being made by any persons, including the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the authorities shall take necessarj/ action, strictly in accordance with law, duly putting the parties on notice, calling for their explalation and ailording them an opportunity of hearing.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall

¶35

stand closed, There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal secretary,^{Department of Municipal Administration and urban}

¶41

D;v;loJmEnt, State^{of telangana,Secretariat, Hyderabad'} 2. i# 6jm;issioner,^{AeffimpittiMunicipality,Bellimpalli, Mancierial,Telangana} 5. iil; M;;a;inevenire^{otrici:r, Bellampbtli Mandal, Mancherial District'} Telangana.

¶42

(gw't

¶43

.,/

¶44

3 i,is 33J","%L::tr,!,m:s::*,ltyeert" topucl n Development, High Court

¶45

, ilJlEiJlriu:rnft rlt l,,,l;si#,,pfl..:: of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶46

Kumar, SC for Municiparities (oPUC)

¶47

J. ?#S BS t"":i:| ""veen One Spare bopy

¶48

ft gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 151061202'l

ORDER

WP.No.4831 ot 2021

TA Ie
Oo 2 3 JUll 2021 t)
*
JI
7 C.

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

\ )--"

Srinivas Sajjanapu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas Sajjanapu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

KandukuruBhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Chandra Prakash and Another Vs the Dy. Collector and 7 Others

Chinturi Gopala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Aishwarya Infra Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana and 10 others

Vakiti Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana