Disposed

Tippani Ashok Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022WA/423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ appeal by an appellant challenging a municipality's compound wall construction. The court found facts disputed and modified the lower court's liberty for survey to be conducted by state planning officials.

What did the court decide?

Liberty for survey modified to be conducted by Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Government of Telangana.

Tippani Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Telangana… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TVVO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 423 OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against order dated 2110312022 Passed in WP.No. 1802 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Betvveen:

¶9

Tippani Ashok Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occupation ; Private Employee, Jakkapalle, Kusumanchi, Khammam - 507159.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, 5th Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Hyd6rabad- 500 063.

¶13

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Complex Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad - 500063.

¶14

Telangana Housing Board, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, 1st floor, 'Gruhakalpa', M.J.Road. Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 001.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Moosapet Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad - 500063.

¶16

Hyderabad Mekopolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Block 'A', District Commercial Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, Telangana500007.

¶17

The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Complex Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad - 500063.

¶18

Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Telangana, 3rd to Sth Floors, 640, C Guards, Opp. to P11 building, Hyderabad-500004.

¶19

B. Executive Engineer (Housing),, Western Division, Telangana Housing Board, 4th Floor, T.H.B Commercial Complex, Opp. Shiva Parwathi Theartre Main Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

|.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in:he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the order d1.211O312022 passed in W.P No.1B02 of 2O21 and consequently direct tl-e respondents not to carry any construction in the schedule property until the final ,lisposal of this writ appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Appe llant : SMT.B.RACHNA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respordent Nos.1 & 7 : GP FOR MCPL ADIlIN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.z, 4 & 6 : SRI.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Res6;ondent Nos.3 & 8 : SRI.C.BUCHI IIEDDY

¶26

Counsel for the ResJ:r>ndent No.S : SRI.Y.RAMA RAO

¶27

The Court made the lbllowing ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND

¶29

TIIE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶30

WRIT APPEAL No.423 of 2022

¶31

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justtp UJjaI Bhuyanl

¶32

Heard Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, Iearned counsel for the appellant.

¶33

This intra-court appeal has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the final order dated 21.O3.2022 passed by the learned Singie Judge disposing of W. P. No. 1802 of 2O2l fr.Ied by the appellant.

¶34

From the materials on record, we lind that the related writ petition was liled by the appellant questioning the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (briefly, the Corporation' hereinafter) in constructing a compound wall allegedly into the land of the appellant. It was aileged that under the guise of and claiming as open /space^{on thebasis ofrevised layout pian, illegal} I construction was being made by the Corporation. I

¶35

¶36

Corporation had filed counter r:ontesting the^{claim of} the appellant. Contrary to the assertion of the appellant, it was contended that it was the appellant who was trying to grab p,.rblic property of layout plan space. In order to protect the s€une, Corporation was constructing the compotrnd wall. Because of threat given by the appellant, compla.i nt was lodged by the Corporation whereafter the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate had granted stay of all further proceedings.

¶37

OrL due consideration, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:

¶38

"5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the record. The contention of *re respondents is thal it is the revised layout. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the GHMC has encroached upon his land and constructing a compourd wall. It is the case of GHMC that they are constructing a compound wall in the open space ald the petitioner has no locus to que stion the same. Now, the disputed fact is whether the^(iHMC has constructed a compound wall in the land bclonging to the petitioner. Unless and until a survey is conrlucted demarcating the boundaries, it cannot be decrCed whether the compound wall is constructed b1' the^|IHMC in the land belonging to the petitioner.

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make aI appropriate application seeking survey of the said land and basing on the said report, the respondents are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents shall not carry any constructions in the property of the petitioner. No order as to costs."

¶44

According to learned counsel for the appellant, existence of any revised layout itself is doubtfnl. Further, it rvas contended that Telangana Housing Board had gifted the subject land to the Corporation, which is also contentlous.

¶45

7 . We feel that contentions raised by the appellant borders on highly disputed questions of fact which we are not inclined to enter into. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge was j ustilied 1n granting iiberty to the appellalt to make ar appropriate application before the competent authority for survey of the said land arld based on the said report, liberty has been granted to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law.

¶46

¶47

Since the Corporation is an interested party, we feel that it wou ld meet the ends of justice if the survey is carried out by officials of the Directorate of Town and r.e Country Planning, Government of Telangana responclent No.7. To that extent, liberty granted by the learned Single Judge I I'l paragraph 6 of the final order dated 21.03^'2022 would stand modified

¶48

Writ aopeal is accordingly disposed of

¶49

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶50

¶51

stand closecl . However, there shall be no order as to costs. to'- "Br[tll{flE8,8+[iH //rRUE copy//

¶52

¶53

sEcrloN oFFlcER

¶54

1 . rhe Principar secretarv. [\rrrrnininrr ad-;^:^.-^.,

¶55

2 lru:::*r1,+i[fj:H^Tfl?:6itHH:y:XHr#,f^{3,:&",,""]opnen,,}

¶56

J 4. 1g'll#fl frifitg;gfftt#ids*t,a,,,##l;l". 5. 6. #tfffqifi,,**nryffi rant.su;o R'6a,,i,-iffi';,:i,

¶57

F,';; ::"'":'"' Xwl 1{^{co^un}

¶58

o_ t'" Ei""-,,ii',I Fffi:".:Pl Board 4th rr^^l i l1"i',1" lrr^;^ .r^].' ,'.-v'^{r 'l l_o tJol} ,q,, I T\udu, nuKalpallv. Hv(

¶59

I I wo UCS to GP l:ae iin5r

¶60

'10 3'#"# i",S ff'f ; f"X IIi,":{?{^{jd}r? uR BA N D E V,Hi g h c o u rt ro r th e}

¶61

11 12 e . eu c 13. 14. g tr ;1;5it$hiffi#:"',ffi[tra,,,,*.L?ca

¶62

One soare con, Q

HIGH COURT

DATED:07107,t',2022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.423 ot; 2022

2 3 StP 2$tr1

DISPOSING^I)F THE W.A

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶72

crVS 69

Tippani Ashok Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tippani Ashok Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 7 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

M/s. Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Tss Impex Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer and another

Mr. Yellaiah Setty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others

M/s Vijay Silk Mills Vs M/s Archid Plywood Ltd.

M. Sukanya Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others