Disposed

S. Shiva Rama Krishna v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC11 Oct 2022WP/10592/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Lalitha Kanneiganti disposed of the review petition, ordering that the respondent municipality be directed not to interfere with the writ petitioner's possession over the subject property, clarifying the order was against the municipality.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of; respondent municipality directed not to interfere with the writ petitioner's possession.

S. Shiva Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

REVI l.a.No.2 0F 2022

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 1059 20F 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

A.P. State. Financial Corporation Rep by Senior Manager, at 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Review Petitioner/Respondertt No.6 AND

¶13

1 S. Shiva Rama Krishna, S/o. S. Appa Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 41, Pragatinagar, Qutubullapur, Telangand State.

¶14

...RespondenWVrit Petitioner

¶15

2 State.of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

J The Municipal Commissioner, Medchal lMunicipality, Medchal, Rangareddy District.

¶17

4 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-26, Kukatpally Zone; Rangareddy District. 5 The Tahsildar, Qutubulla pur Mandal, Medch'al, Rangareddy^-District.

¶18

6 The Station House Officer, Jeedimaila Police Statioi, Ranfaredy District.

¶19

...Respondents/Respdt.Nos. 1 to 5

¶20

Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review the order dated 16-03-2022 passed in WP No.10592 of 2022 by Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶21

The Petition coming on for hearing and upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Review Petitioner and Sri S.J.A.Nadeem, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and the Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Dev., Sri Chatla Madhu, SC for GHMC for Respondent Nos.3 & 4; Govt. Pleader for Revenue for Respondent No.5 and the Govt. Pleader for Home for Respondent No.6.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

REVIEW I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.1O592 of 2O22

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The review petition is filed seeking ttre following relief:

¶28

".... to review the^'order dated .16.03.2O22 passed in W.p.No.1O592 of 2O22 by Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and ...".

¶29

Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the review petitioner/6th respondent submits that while passing the order dated 16.O3.2O22 in writ petition i.e.W.P.No. 10592 of 2022, this court has observed that the learned standing cotrnsel for mtrnicQality has su'bmitted that they are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent/writ petitioner,s property and that there is a dispute with regard to identity of property I I between the review pelitioner and the respondent. It is further submitted that in the operative portioh of the order, it is stated that the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner,s possession over the subject property.

¶30

l,earned counsel submits this court as per the further observations made in the order should have specially mentioned that the orders are against the municipality alone but not against the review petitioner. He submits that in the operative portion of the order it is mentioned as respondents and it includes thc review petitioner also. As the writ petitioner may take the

¶31

¶32

advantage of the order,^petitioner has come up with the^{present petition} seeking clarification in this regard.

¶33

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the^{review petitioner'is} absolutely correct, as per the entire order and the^{operativeportion also, this} court has disposed of t}-re writ^petition basing^{on the submissionsmade by the} learned municipal standing Counsel and even this order is^againstthe municipal corporation. Hence, to that extent, this order is clarificd and^the resporylent municipality is directed not to interfere with the writ^petitioner's possession.

¶34

Review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶35

SD/.P.PADMANABHA RED9Y ASSISTANT REGIS)KAR U,^,/ //TRUE COPY// COPY// SECTION OFF]CER

¶36

I //TRUE COPY// COPY// SECTION OFF]CER To, 1. The Municipal Commissioner, Medchal^{Municipality, Medchal, Rangareddy} District.

¶37

1. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-26,^{Kukatpally Zone, Medchal Rangareddy} District.

¶38

1. One CC to Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶39

One CC to Sri S.J.A.Nadeem Advocate TOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration^{& Urban Development,High} Court for the State of Telanoana. [OUT]

¶40

Two CCs to GP for Home, Fliqh Court^{for the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue,-Hiqh Court^{for the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri Chatla Madhu, Advocate^(OPUC) 9. Two CD Copies 10. One Spare Copy

MRC PS .- tt

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1111012022

1HE si4 t
(
c 0 4 N0II 2tr72 2a
1-
-: ,!
/.' .i! ,','
\ ,,/
<br>..Ye I)'
ORDER

¶47

Rev.l.A.No.2 ot 2022 !N WP.No.10592 of 2022

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE Rev.l.A.

S. Shiva Rama Krishna v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Shiva Rama Krishna v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naluguri Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mrs. Farheen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Gurrala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sukhavasi Lalitha , Lalithamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

A. Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others