The High Court dismissed the writ appeal and stay applications, holding that the impugned order directing authorities not to interfere with construction on patta land was正确的 and the appellant had no objection.
Leave to file appeal and dispensation with certified copy dismissed; writ appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN rHE HoNouRABLE MRs1U3r,.. ,r*rrALLr NANDA
t.ANO. 1 AN.D 2 0F 2022 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 466 OF 2022
writ Appeal filed under crause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 30/06/2022 passed in w, p. No zt sze oi zozz"on inu tir" oi t e "iigti-co;rt]'-'
Between:
ucc: Syed_ ZainulAbedin, Business. Rlo 12_2_800/69, S/o Late DilshadSygdNizamuddin,Aged 46years, Nagar, Mehidpatnam, Hyierabad.
..,APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Z
/wNo: t or zozz
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to grant leave to file present appeal.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the orderpassesin W.P No. 27529 of 2022 daled 301612022 andpermit thepetitioner to file a copy obtained from the High court website.
lA NO: 3 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the orders passed in WP No.27529 of 2022 dated 30 06.2022
Counsel for the Appellant : SRI D RAGHAVENDRA RAO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SRI. D MADHAVA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI V T KALYAN
Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTARTION AND URBAN DEVELOPMEMT
Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 : SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUICIPALITY
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
U JAL THE HN'BLETHE
AND
NANDA THE HON 'BLEMRS JUSTICE
I.A.Nos.1and 2 of 2O22
in/and
WRIT APPEALNo'466 of 2022
JUDGMENT:lPer theHa^'ble theChefJttstrceUJlalBhuyai)
Heard Mr.D.RaghavenderRao' Iearned counsel for the apPellant.
<br>
impugned order may be set aside and ma.ttermay be
remanded back to the learned SingleJudge.
"Heard the learned counselfor the petitioners,the Iearned Government Pleader for Municipal Administrationand Urbal Dcvelopment for respondent No.1,leai'nedGovernment Pleader lor llevenue for respondcr']t No.2, and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing forrespondent No.3. With their conscnt, the ' 1itpetition itself is disposedof at the admission stage.
Aggrieved by the action of the respondenrs in intcrfering .,'ith the possession and cnjo-vment of thepetitiorrcrs inrespeci of the subject plots situated at lmam Ellclave, BalapurVjllage and Revenue Mandal (old Sarocr Nagar Mandal), thep.esent writ Petition is flled.
Learned Standing Counsel,r.rn instructions, hasstated that based on the complaint given by one Abha lludirr.the official respondents have only visited the site Iorinspection end in case the respondent authorities need to ta-keany action,they will do sc strictly in accordance with iaw.
Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the writ Petition is disposed oI directing theoificial respondents not to interfere rvith ure constructicn activity being undertaken by thepetitioners over the subject lands.However, in case of any deviations from the sanctionedplan, the respondent authorities are free to take further action, strictlyin accordance with law."
1 I
7 . We fail to understand as to howthe appellantcan have any objection tosuch a directionof the learned Single Judge, that too, overthe patta land of the writ petitioners'
I
E. In ','teu-of the above,l.A.Nos land' 2 ol 2022 as well as theu,'ritaPPeal are dismissed
g. Miscellaneousapplicationspending'ifany'shail
stand closed.However,thereshall be no order as to costs
sDr.cBEvsrsIESH+[hH
IITRUECOPY// [' SECTIONOFFICER
To,
SB
LS
)N>
HIGH COURT
DATED:2210712022
JUDGMENT
i ;if. :i .tr:. p
I o
i'. <br>o
(.) 2 B JUL 2[22
i<br>.,,y *
D E.$ pAT c --'
I.ANO. 1 AND 2 OF 2022 IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL NO: 466 OF 2022
DISMISSING THE l.A.Nos. 1 AND 2 OF 2022 AND THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
qL-
t-
;
>b $<br>
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant who was not a party to the underlying writ petition can object to a direction not to interfere with construction activity.
Syed Zainul Abedin
State of Telangana
Ujjal Bhuyan
Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
