Disposed

Palepu BharathBabu v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC26 Apr 2022WP/16747/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of municipal authorities regarding illegal construction on land. The court directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders concerning the matter within a week, finding the petition inadmissible on merits due to non-disclosure of details but noting the duty to act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders on representations dated 22.10.2021 and 23.12.2021 within a week of the date of the order. Miscellaneous applicati

Palepu BharathBabu Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:^{16747 OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Paleou BharathBabu, S/o.^{Late P.S.R. Sastry'Age' 57 years' Occ Retd'} b3;#;;l;i"'sfi;;i,-'Rv".^{- rl.r.ro. i-t t, - Snanini rua6ar, RoadNo-4'} dnjgy;rlihi coronv,^{V"nasinaripuiim,Hvobr.,oio-Sooozo'"''n9?[?,?,t6l,t=*}

¶8

AND

¶9

The Commissioner,^{Officeof lvlunicigalCorporation'Khammam Muncipal} Corooration, Khammam^{(Town and ulstrrct)'}

¶10

, irut6#.^{u,jr:" ofiilJJiill,ii;".ri.Ji, ['townps, Khammam(rown and} cc^{M e d ca}

¶11

. 3 i : ii,: w,Tko

¶12

E il :, !f#y 3,[::[ fi ,?:\i i,:i: ] ",i "1[?,:i,C'.?

¶13

:. Bi.[.,,tl$^ru##ln'm "'.-Uilffi;*t'i# *, Khammam 'RESP.NDENTS Petition^{underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} filed^{therewith'the High Court may be} circumstances^{statedin "} "t'd""'t 1l p "u="0 to^ssue '-.l :'1"::i:h:x'::I""':;:J::."i i ;:li Mandamus^{by declaring the lnacttut ' '} ""r""",^{respondents No. 3 to 5' to stop} o r m v y^Land initiatins^{appropriate action asainst the unorricial t":::;;;,;"0*} wall'^{by trespassinginto partf} their^{illegal construction} "i ""rn0"'"0 bearing^{Plot No 4' aOm"'suringabout 900 square Yardsout of Ac'0-28gts'} withintheboundariest;;;'inrepresentationdated22l l ol2o2lmadeto Respondent^{No 1 as ;;;;;*regarand *"-:;1"-:" T:Jt:l"tnil} ", """.r l: lf :i ::r:m^{ii:l" :} H [#r^{r : "j; ; : *:;ilJ} attained iudicial^FinalitY

¶14

construction activity in the plot of land owned and possessed by the writ petitioner

¶15

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to ensure demolition the compound wall and any other constructions that are constructed illegally by the un-official respondents No.3 to 5, by trespassing into part of my owned Land bearing plot No.4, Ad-measuring about 900 square yards, pertaining to the petitioner, within the boundaries mentioned in my representations daled 22r10t202r and 1311212021 to Respondent No.1

¶18

Counset for the petitioner: SRI S. AGASTYA SHARMA

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SMT. M. BHAGYASRI

¶20

(sc FoR MC RAMAGUNDAM)

¶21

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Gp FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: _--

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THT] HONBLE SMT. .ITISTICE I-At,ITI{A KANNEGANTI

¶25

WRIT PETI'IION No.16717 <tf 2022

¶26

ORI)ER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is tlled seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.l and 2 in initiating appropriate action against the unolflcial respondent Nos.3 to 5 to stop their illegal construction of compound wall by trespassing into^{parl of land bearingPtot No'4, adrneasuring about 900} sq. yards, out^{of Ac.0.28 gts., in spite of detailedrepresentation dated} 22.1 O.2O2l,^{as illegaland arbitrary.}

¶28

¶29

Sri S.Agasthya^{Sharma,leamed counselfor the petitioner'submitted} that as^{per Section 178(6) of the Municipalities Act'a duty is caste upon the} respondents^{to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders' As} they failed^{to do so, the petitioneris constrainedto approachthis Court'}

¶30

Smt.^{M'BhagyaSri' Iearned StandingCounsel' submitted that in lact} the^{parlicularsof the r'rnofhcialrespondentsand detailso1 the property were} not^{pl'operly furnishedby the petitioner' as such' the respondent authorities} could^{not take necessary action.Apart from that the office of the respondent} ' that^{also' somedelayhas taken place'} irthorities^{was shifted'} 'or

¶31

Adrnittedly'^{the petitioner filed representationsdated 22J02021 and} \i,O1\1'^{\s pet Sectron \1t(6) of lhe Mumc\pa\rtres Nat' w\renever a}

-,=-=-

--=---

)

representation^{is filed' the respondentautholities are bound to considerthe} satne^{u ithir-ra week from the date of receipt of the saidrepl'esentatlon'} Whatever^{the difficultiesand whatever the action that theyhave taken should} be communicated^{to the petitionerwithina week'}

¶36

Accordingly,^{the writ petitionis disposed of directingthe respondent} authorities^{shaltpass appropriate orders in light of the representationsdated} 22.10.2021 and^{73.12.2021within a week from today' No order as to costs'}

¶37

Miscellaneous^{applications, pending il an;-. shall stand closed'}

¶38

sd/-P^{PADMANiBRES,BED} R

¶39

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION FICER

¶40

'o'^{',. ,n" commissioner,office of MunicipalCorporation'Khammam Muncipal}

¶41

Corporation, Khammam^{(Town and District)'} 2. rhe Station norse omiJi ii1liiji'rlJj,^{i-'town PS' Khammam (Town and District)}

¶42

One CC to Sri S^{Agastya Sharma Advocate} {OPUCI

¶43

O;a aa to smt. Ml^{Bhaqvasri, SC for MunicipalitiesAdvocate} tOPUq] -

¶44

S. iwo CCs to GP For Hofre,^{Hiqh Court for the Stateof Telangana[OUT]}

¶45

Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy MBC .\v --Y

URT
HIGH C

LK,J

DATED:^261041202?

i- {-
o
,J 2 B o.pfl 21]?2 1..
., ,/,/
:s
.*

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.16747^{of 2022}

¶52

D'SPOSING OF THE WRII PEIII,ON

¶53

W,THOUT COSTS 9

Palepu BharathBabu v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palepu BharathBabu v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Trust Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Sunnam Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Lokesh Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Brungi Surender Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Mr. Syed Iftekhar Ahmed And 4 Others Vs The Commissioner

Eligeti , Aligeti Indira Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others