Disposed

Gaddagunty Raghupathi, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022WP/16166/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition via habeas corpus, a resident sought directions to clear an obstruction over a public passage leading to his property. The High Court, finding the allegations involved civil disputes and that the Official Respondents lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate private disputes, merely directed them to issue notice if encroachment exists.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue notice if unofficial respondents are encroaching; not to consider other civil dispute allegations in representation.

Gaddagunty Raghupathi, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

+[ 3230 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:1 6166 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

g9d{ggynlV laghupathi, S/0. late G Janqaiah Aged 64 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H No. 13-1 1-141t2, Sahithi Nagar, DitiukhnagSr, HyOe'ra-tiaa S-OO-OOO^-'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The state of relangana, Represented by its principar secretarv. Municioar Admrnrstratron and urban Development Departmeht, secretari6i Buildings Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Greater Hyde.rabad Municrpar corporation, Rep by its commissioner Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶13

3 The Zonal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Charminar Zone. Charminar, Hyderdbad.

¶14

4 I1:-l::S]:"1_9ity^{Planner/Circte-tV, Greater HyderabadMunicipat} Uorporatton, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 $/g.^S^qlslmyuktha^{Apartment Rep by its Sercretary,} R/o. H.No. 16-2_ 7 51 l93lF, Sai Samyukiha Apartmeht.Sairam Cotonyl'SaidanaO',-Uyde-raUaA 500059.

¶16

6 9 9!qn{rq^{Sekhar, S/o. Eswaraiah, Aged 45 years,} Occ. Business, R/o. Ftat No'1 04, Sai Samvukrha Ana rtment, R/oI n ruo i-o-z_75ilga7i,-Sii,i-m ioio"i,' Saidabad, Hyder5bad 5obo59

¶17

7 9. lqlqlu!.qr,^{Sio. G. Eswaraiah, Aged 35 years,} Occ. Business, R:/o. H.No. 16-2-751 l93tDt6,Sairam Cotony, Said;bad, iivOeiina,i S0OOS9.

¶18

RR 5to7 impleaded as perC.O. dl.Z2tO7l2O21 in l.A. No. 212021.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'cJurt may oe pleased to a writ or order or direction more particularly one in th-e nature or writ ot Mandamus declaring inaction of the Respondents 2 to 4 in taking cognirance ufon the Representation dated 16.11.2020 with respect to clearing o6strtiction ou"i'th" passage leading to H.No.16-2- 751l93tAl2l1tc, admeasuring- 207.66 square yards in Sy.No.47 situated at sairam corony, saidbad Mandar, Hiderabad Di.tri.t'ir r.

¶21

being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutiona r apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 300-4 of the^{-constitution} of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to forthwith clear the obstruction over the public road/common passage leading to the subject property

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that an the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne uigrr court may be pleased to airect the Respondents nos.2 to 4 forthwith talie into cognizance upon the Representation dated 16 1^'l .2020 submitted by the petitioner and clear the obstruction over the pubric road/common passage reading to the subject piop".tv, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. O.UDAYA KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No,s. 2 to 4:SRl. V.PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

IION' IILE SNI'r. J USTIC [], L;\f,I]'l IA KANN IIGANTI

¶29

WltI'I' t'>ETI'I'lON No.l6l66 of 2021

¶30

ORDEII:

¶31

This writ petitiorl is tiled sceking the tbllowing relief:

¶32

" ... to a writ or ordcr or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandanrus declaring inaction of the Rcspondents 2 to 4 in taking cognizance upon the llepresentation dated 16.11.2020 with respect to clearing obstruction over the^passage leading to H.No.16-2751/93/A/2/1/C admeasuring 207.66 square yards in Sy.No.47 situated at Sairam Colony, Saidbad Mandal, Hyderabad District is as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional apart lrom being violative of fundanrental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to forthwith clear the obstruction over the^public road/common^passage leading to the subject property ...."

¶33

Sri O. Udaya I(ur.nar, Iearnod counsel lirr the petitioner, subrnits that the petitioner has givcn a representation to the official^respondents as well as Police Corutnissioner orr^[ 6.1^I .2020 stating about^the civil disputes between hirn and the unof ficial^{respondents and the way the} urrofl-rcial respondents are threatcnitlg the t)etitioner. But, till^{date no} action l-ras been taken.

¶34

/ I

¶35

L Sri V.Praveen Kutlar, learnccl Startding^{Counsel, submitslhat he} will come up witl.r a detailed counter-af^fidavit.

¶36

In the entire representation, it appears^{that the petitionerwants to} settle the disputes betweeu^{hiI'n and the unol ficial respondentby the} GHMC as well as tl're Police [)epartrnent.^{This Court cannot direct the}

¶37

¶38

olflcial rcspondcr-rts, u,lto havc no jurisdiction and auttrority. to consider the reprcsentation of- tlte pctitioner

¶39

Accortlingly. the Writ Petition is disposed off directing that if the runol flcial respondents are trTing to encroach the public road, the ol-llcial respondcnts shall issr-re notice and pass appropriate orders. As Iar as all otl'rer allegations in the represcutation are concemed, the lcspondcnt C'orporation cantlot go into the same. No order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneor-rs appiications, pending il-any, shall stand closed.

¶41

ASS*TiRfoa85SFiH / / //TRUE COPY// . ,.'

¶42

SECTIONOFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Pepartment,^{State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings.Hyderabad.'} 2 The Commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Cdrpor6tion, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad 3 The Zonal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Charminar Zone, Charminar, Hyderibad. 4 The Assistant City Planner/Circie-lV, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderab-ad. 5 One CC to SRl. O.UDAYA KUMAR Adv6cate tOpUCt 6 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN D'EV,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7 One CC to SRI V PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC), Advocate tOpUCl 8 Two CD Copies. o One Spare Copy. GB SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911012022

.a (:- r<br>'a-\
*<br>ic s ot!
.q,
"-a
o

.:.:;__..;::/

ORDER

WP.No.16166 ot ZO21

DISPOSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS,

ULrrP'n)

?-1-'

Gaddagunty Raghupathi, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddagunty Raghupathi, 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

Mrs. Naheed Nazeer Vs Telangana State

Smt. Kumkuma Rani Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed Vs The State of Telengana and 4 Others

P. Sulochana Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Moguloju Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt. Chette Radha Vs The State of Telangana