Allowed

Gampa. Devi Prasad and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC4 Apr 2022WP/17231/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the proposed demolition of petitioners' shops and houses without notice. The High Court disposed of the petition to prevent interference with possession pending compliance with due process.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioners' possession until due process followed and compensation paid.

Gampa. Devi Prasad and 4 Others Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17231 OF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Gampa. Devi Prasad, S/o. Gangadhar, Age. 44 Years, Occ. Business, Rio. Shantinagar, Khanapur Town and lt/andal, Nirmal District, presently residing at Flat. No. 302, B-Block, Dolifine, Durga County, Madinaguda, Near Max Showroom, Hyderabad.

¶9

Bandari. Srinivas, S/o. Narsimhulu, Age. 50 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 8-113, Padmawathi Nagar, Khanapur Town and lVlandal, Nirmal District.

¶10

Yerra. Sudhakar, S/o. Narsimhulu, Age. 63 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.21-95, Vidyanagar, KhanapurTown, Nirmal District.

¶11

T. Venkata Limbadri, S/o. Vembaiah, Age. 43 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 26-36, Shivaji Nagar, Khanapur Town and Mandal, Nirmal District.

¶12

Mohammed Jalaluddin, S/o. lvlohammed Yaseen, Age. 65 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 16-18218, Quba Colony, Shaheen Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Khanapur Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner,

¶17

Khanapur' Nirmal District

¶18

...RES'.NDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of^{the respondent} authorities in^proposing to demolish the shops^{and house properties of the} petitioners i.e shop number 5-81 New 6-35^(old)), of the^{petitionerNo.1, shop} No.5-78 New 6-23^(old) of the^{petitioner No.2,shop No. 5-79 New, 6-24 (old)} situated at Padmavathinagar and^{the residential Housebearing H.No.19-51/A,} situated at Vidyangar of the^{petitionerNo.3, the residentialHouse No.5-76} (New), 6-2911 (Old), 6-2912 (Old) situated at Padmavathi^{Nagarof the petitioner}

¶20

No.4 and^{the residential House bearing H.No.5-77 New, 6-22 (old) situatedat} Padmavathinagar,^{of the petitionerNo'5' in Khanapur Municipallimits' all these} properties consisting^{of Ground and First Floor' without following dueprocess of} Law, i.e^{without paying any compensation to the petitioners' without issuing any} notices^{and without caling for any expranationfrom the petitioners is nothing but} arbitrary,^{illegal, null and void and violative of principlesof natural justiceand} also violative^{of Articles14' 19 and 21 of the Constitutionof lndia and also} contrary^{to the provislonsof Telangana MunicipalitiesAct' 2019'Consequently} direct the^{respondent' authorities not to demolish any part of the properties of the} petitioners^{i.e shop number5-81 New6-35 (old)), of the petitionerNo l ' shop} No.5-78^{New6-23 (old) of the petitionerNo'2' shop No 5-79 New' 6-24(old)} situatedatPadmavathinagarandtheresidentialHousebearingH.No.l9-5,1/A' situated^{at Vidyangar of the petitionerNo 3' the residential House No 5-76} (New), 6-2911^{(Old), 6-29/2 (Old) situated at Padmavathi Nagarof the petitioner} No.4 and^{the residential House bearingH No 5-77 New' 6-22 (old) situatedat} Padmavathinagar,^{of the petitionerNo 5' situatedin Khanapur Municipallimits'} all these^{properties consistingof Ground plus First Floors'unlessdue procedure} contemplated^{under Law is followed and suitable compensationis paid to the} petitionerS.

¶21

IA NO: 10^{F 2022}

¶22

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 respondents^{authorities not to demolish any part of the properties of the} petitioners^{Le shop number5-81 New6-35 (old))' of the petitioner No 1' shop} No.5-78^{New 6-23 (old) of the petitionerNo'2' shop No 5-79 New' 6-24 (old)} situated at^{Padmavathinagarand the residential Housebearing H No '19-51/A'} situated^{at Vidyangar of the petitionerNo'3' the residential House No 5-76} (New), 6-2911^{(Old),6-2912(Old) situated at Padmavathi Nagarof the petitioner} No.4 and^{the residentiar Housebearing H.No.5-77 New,6-22 (old) situated at} Padmavathinagar,^{of the petitionerNo 5' situatedin Khanapurtvlunicipal limits'}

¶23

unless due^{procedure contemplatedunder Law is followed and suitable} compensation^{is paidto the petitione0'}

¶24

Counsel for^{the Petitioners: SRI K' VENUMADHAV} Coun."f for^{the Respondents:GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URABAN^DEVELOPMENT Corn."f for^{the Respondent No'2: SRI N' PRAVEEN KUMAR'} SC FOR MUNIGIPALITY

¶25

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶26

¶27

¶28

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI W.p.tto.t723tOF 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petirion is filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in proposing to demolish the shops and house properties of the petitioners bearing shop Nos.S_ 81 new 6-35 (old), 5-78 new 6-23 (old), 5-79 new 6_24 (old) situated at Padmavathi Nagar and residential house bearing Nos.19-51/A situated at Vidyanagar, H.No,5-76 (new), 6-29/1 (old), 629/2 (old) and .H.No.5-77 new 6_22 (old) situated at Padmavathi Nagar in Khanapur Municipal Limits, under the guise of road widening without issuing any notice and following due process of law, as illegal.

¶31

Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents without following due process of law and without issuing any notice are threatening to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over rhe house and shop properties, hence, he has approached this

¶32

Court.

¶33

¶34

Sri N.Praveen^{Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for} the respondent^{Municipalitysubmits that the respondent} authorities^{are not interfering with the Petitioners'} possession in^{respect of the houseand shopproperties and} they are^{only removing the encroachmentson the existing} 100'road.

¶35

Recording^{the subrnissionof the learned Standing} Counsel, the^{Writ Petition is disposed of directing the} respondent^{authoritiesnot to interfere with the petitioners'} possession^{and enioyment over the house and shop} propetties, without^{following due processof law' There} shall be no^{order as to costs'}

¶36

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any, pending'shall}

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

S D/-G.SIREESHA ASSTSTA NT REGISTRAR

¶39

//TRUE^COPY// SECTTON^{OFFIC ER}

¶40

¶41

To,

¶42

liHrlrfr^Hi,rH]*ts+'#*ffi *'#:i::"^n::ff X;']"1""' District

¶43

ilffi Elii"f^{t''::gl;}jnh#3Etmim'+ngii'"''""*} A Two CD^CoPies 7. on"^sParecoPY Sm BS V

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412022

ORDER

WP.No.17231 ot 2022

,/'tte -Z::=S, srArt-;<br>t
oof, nU u i', P ft 202 l:
v\iI

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

Gampa. Devi Prasad and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gampa. Devi Prasad and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Boddu Manisha, Vs Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University

Devender Reddy Vanavasam Vs Union of India

Bhatta Chandrashekar Vs Board of Secondary Education

M/s.Guardian Security Services Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Achukatla Gopal and 6 others Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

S.Ravinder Reddy Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and 3 others