Disposed

Mohammed Sadiquddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Sept 2021WP/5162/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking direction to the 2nd respondent (Municipal Corporation) to consider objections filed by the petitioner. The court directed the authority to examine pending applications, grant personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider objections and applications, grant personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Mohammed Sadiquddin Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST so;",, i 6l!,;'i l:r!3jl:,fli^{Ar HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWE rwo Ttcjulll[']fiBt flf=t ?i

¶3

sEprEMBER

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

Between:

¶7

WR ITP ETITIO NNO .E 162 OF 20 21

¶8

$ilUr:t*'fl1?,1J]b.0;,.11:,y;i1*[h,#ilff^{,stt:,"?l],?:xiry"?.5ff}

i,q

AND

...PETITIONER

'1 . The State of Telanoa M u n i c i p a r Ad m i n i st rat i o n

¶13

JeiL,'r:,rrfff !fi i Hts':t["ri'&:'3fl f,T'"t"''

¶14

, i;3 ^^{Lqmagudam, puoorpu'illHiltipalcorporation' Rep. by its commissioner,} .'iJl:ffi ,ifl:b:i:55l:%',iri{ih}g:9,1i,,#rsocc'Business,

¶15

tdJrflii}ft

¶16

+. rnrruveedhula Samba Siva Rao, S/o Kuma *R Occ- Business. R/ o nBX -,.;

¶17

.^{R a ma s u nd J ;} t l' ?3', i".t TJ;,., o i*,., ilfr 3 ll ".,i,1^{i r# lr:,, iH,^|"-,:}

¶18

b vengara Ramesh. st", trtJrsirirr',".i'u'o''+r v"ur., occ-.Business R/o, H No.6-2^'i:l?^{i i :iJ} "|sn's^5;x; ; il; L.3 i"Hi:6 Jb] va ri r rr a n i Ra ma s u nd a m ' il:: District.!.:i8il s Hii:? sJ3;,1 ?[3:,i' ffi ,::? #;: Jf"[1,oni:; 5i, i B?I [3;,,,,

¶19

' YiiP;,f,3uir,lyi.rylo.^Ramesh, House^a-sed colonv^{25 yrs,} Godavarikhani^{occ-.Househotd, -il;;g;;j;il"'Rio H.No6_2_} Mandal, PedriapatTi r'jfrH"t

¶20

B Chippa siddhartha. sio Shankar, Ased 4s years, occ- Business, R/o. H.No.19-6298 Laxminaqar. Godavarikhrnr, 12"*giijlri vranoar, peddapaili Disrrict.

¶21

1. Chippa Devi, 5/o Shankar, aged SO yrs, "OiJUousewire, R/o. H.No.19_6_298. Laxmi Naqar. Godavarikhinil*;.q{L;ior; tui".jii p"iol"priri ijinii.i -"",

¶22

'10 Manchikalra Venkata Swamy, sro xituiir,,'ngJo'lz v".rr, occ. Business, RJo. H Nno 1e-8-2e0, Laxrni Nasai, cooivirirnlni,"R;;adi;a;i"N/'Ji.Ji'i'i;"oirrp.'rri

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Articre 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring action of the respondent No 2 in not considering objections submitted through my counsel on 23-02-2021 requesting not to grant any permission in respect of sale Deeds executed by the respondent No 10 in favour of Respondent No.3 to g in Sy No.669 of Jangoan Shivar, Godavarikhani lvlandal, Peddapalli District, to an extent of 1 acres 10 guntas of land as illegal, arbitrary, against Article 300-4 of constitution consequently direct the respondents No 2 not to grant any permissions in respect of land in Sy.Mo 66g of Jangoan Shivar, Godavarikhani Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶25

il21

¶26

lA No:^{1 oF 2021} :- aL^ ^ i '^,,nctrnce s stated^{in the} Petition^{underSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the c rcumstance} affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the Hlgh Court maybe pleased to directthe} respondent^{No.2not to grant any permission in respect of land in Sy No 669 of} Jangoan^{Shivar' GodavarikhaniMandal' PeddapalliDistrict'penclingdisposalof the} Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel^{for the Petitioners :SRl' K' JAGADISHWARREDDY}

¶28

Counsel^{for the ResPondent No'1:} GP FOR^{MUNICIPiI ATiliI.TISTNITIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶29

counser^{for the Respondent No'2:} sc roiTluli.lEifltt#"RAfloN

¶30

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'4 & 10: SRI K'S' MURTHY}

¶31

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶32

I t1

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.S152 OF 2O2L

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.Bhagrasri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2"d respondent-Municipal Corporation and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 10 and perused the record.

¶37

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of^respondent No.2 in not considering objections dated^{23.02.2021submitted} through his counsel requesting 2nd respondent not to^{grant any} permission in respect ol sale deeds executed by^{respondent No.10 in} favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9^{with regardto land in Sy'No'669of} Jangaon Shivar, Godavarikhani^{Mandal, Peddapalli district, to an} extent oI Ac.^1- 10^{guntas,as illegal}

¶38

The petitioner^{hereinis claiming that he is the owner of the} Iand admeasuring^{Ac.14-30guntasin Sy'No669 of JangaonShivar'} Godavarikhani^{Mandal, Peddapalli district'He has submitted} objections^{throughhis counsel dated23 02'2021to 2"d respondent} requesting not^{toaccordanY Permission lnfavourof unofficial} respondents.^The said objections,^{were not considered by the 2nd} the other^{hand, 2"d respondent is going to grant} respondent.^On permission to^{the unofficial respondentsfor construction of residential} houses. Therefore,^{the petitioner herein filedthe present writ petition'}

¶39

4.Inthecounterfiledby2.drespondentitisspecifically mentioned^{that 2nd respondent Corporationhas not receivedany} application^{from the unofficialrespondents seeking permissionfor} construction^{of building in the above-mentioned land' If any such}

¶40

¶41

application is made in future, the same will be examined and considered in accordance with law.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 10 would submit that respondent Nos.4 and 10 have not submitted any applications to 2od respondent seeking permission for construction of residential building. He would submit that respondent No. 1 0 has purchased 03 acres of land from father of the petitioner and 4rh respondent in turn purchased the said property from 1O,h respondent. Therefore, he wants to appear before the 2.d respondent and submit all the relevant documents.

¶43

in view of the above submissions, this Writ petition is disposed of directing 2nd respondent to consider ohjections dated 23'O2'202r submitted by the petitioner and also the applications to be submitted by the unofficial respondents seeking permission for construction of residential houses in the subject property after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 1O to put forth their contentions and submit documents if any, before the 2nd respondent, who in turn, shall consider the same. There is no order to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand_ closel ,"jtr!4t "f^{this finalorder}

¶45

//rRUE copy// ^B31rl^]iTr#tifrRiX, \ To, ,| SECTION OFFICER Ramasundam Municipar corporation, Ramasudam. 2 Ilir:iq,fi'Aliner' 2 4. A o. 7. ffi ff^{tr',tr6"#,H'*"{ffffiii'blld:k;;'^} CHR TP

HIGH^COURT

DATED:21^10912021

ORDER

W.P.No.5162 ot²⁰²¹

,1- )
:)
.J 0 1 0qT 2021 a
x
.r],

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

q
0
I I

Mohammed Sadiquddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sadiquddin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana and another

Beeravolu Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

A. Sandeep (Sandeep Kumar Akula) Vs The Telangana State and 3 others

M/s. R.K. Traders Vs The Government of Telangana

N. Pardha Saradhi Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 others