Disposed

Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy v. The Government of Telangana Dept

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/18789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking declaration of inaction by municipal authorities in protecting a gravel road and direction to police not to interfere with road construction. Petitioners alleged land grabbing and obstruction. The court examined submissions regarding the efficacy of police action and remedy available.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications closed.

Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Government of Telangana… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18789 OF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Ir/r. K. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. House No. 2-9, Sathyamma Garden, lvlanikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar lt4andal, Rangareddy District, Telengana-500089.

¶9

lr,4 rs. K. Geetha, Wio. K. Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. House No. 2-9, Sathyamma Garden, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar tr/andal, Rangareddy District, Telengana-500089.

¶10

l,4 r. Chowdarigari Anji Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. House No. 5-33, Bowrampet Village, GandimaisammaDundigal Mandal, N,4edchal-Makajgiri District, Telangana - 500 043.

¶11

Sri P. Shiva Krishna, S/o. Sudhakar, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 128, Road No.74, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033.

¶12

M/s. Tripura Constructions, Regd. Off: Plot No. 2, Opp Film Nagar Temple, Above Bank of lndia, Laxmi Ganapathi Nilayam, Road No. 76, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 036.

¶13

Rep. By its lManaging Partner, Ir/ r. P. Sudhakar S/o. P. Venkaiah.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Government of Telangana Dept, of Municipal Administration and Urban Development,Telangana Secretariate, 5th Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan,NH-44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 063. Represented by its Principal Secretary.

¶17

) Hyderabad It4etropolitan Development Authority, Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038 Represented by its Ir/etropolitan Commissioner.

¶18

3 Dundigal Municipality, Dund igal-Gandimiasamma Mandal, Ir,4edchal-Ma lkajg iri District, Telangana Rep. by its lr/etropolitan Commissioner.

¶19

Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Near Gland Pharma, Gandmaisamma X Roads, Medchal-lvlalkajgiri District, Telangana.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lridia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to pass an order or orders or writ or direction^{more particularly one in the} nature of Writ of lvlandamus^{declaring the inaction of the 2nd and3rd} Respondents in initiating necessary^{action/stepsfor protecting the existinggravel} road^passing through Gram^{Panchayat approvedlayouts and connectingthe} gated community layouts namely, Landmark-lll and^{Landmark-lV as approvedby} Respondents 2 and 3 and enable^{the petitionersto lay CC Road connecting their} layouts to lr,4iyapur-BHEL Ring^{Road for a stretchof about 1.1 kms to haveeasy} and safe connectivity and^{furtherto direct the 4th Respondent not to interfere} with the ongoing construction and^{developmentof existing gravel road intoCC} road leading from Landmark-lll^{and Landmark-lVto lr,4iyapur-BHELRing Road as} arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the^{provisions of HyderabadN,4etropolitan} Development Authority Act, 2008,^{Telanganalvl u nicipalities Act, 2019, besides} being violative of petitioners rights^{guaranteedunderArt. 14 and 19(1)(g), 21 and} 300-A of Constitution of lndia.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleased} disposal of the writ^petition, direct the Respondent^{Nos. 2 and 3 to take steps for} protecting the existing 30'-00" Wide Road leading from Landmark-lll and Landmark-lV to lvliyapur-BHEL Ring Road and^{passing through} the^layouts namely, S. tvlalla Reddy Layout, Satish Layout and tt4allikarjuna Nagar^Phase-ll,

¶24

¶25

thereby enabling the petitioners to undertake repairs to existing gravel road and laying of CC road.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Section 15'1 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 4th Respondent not to interfere with the ongoing construction and development of existing gravel road into CC road leading from Landmark-lll and Landmark-lV to tViyapur-BHEL Ring Road.

¶28

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶29

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 allow the petitioner's to modify the contents of the Writ affidavit in para-Nos. 4 and 12 more particularly to the extent of approach road leading from MiyapurBHEL Ring Road to the Petitioners'Layouts i.e., LANDIt/ARK-lll and LANDMARK-IV as 40'-00" Wide Road as otherwise indicted as 30'-00" Wide Road.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. V. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶33

WRIT PETITION^{No.18789 ot2022}

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ Petition^{is filed seekinga mandomttsto declarethe inaction} of respondent Nos.2^{and 3 in initiatingnecessary action/steps for protecting} the existing^{gravel road passing throughGram panchayat approvedlayouts} and connecting the^{gatedcommunity layouts, namely Landmark-lll and} Landmark-IV, as approved^{by respondentNos.2 and 3, and enablethe} petitioners to 1ay CC road^{connectingtheir layouts to Miyapur-BHELRing} Road for a stretch of^{1.1 kms. to haveeasy and safeconnectivity,as arbitrary} and iilegal, and^{sought a direction to the 4'h respondentnot to interferewith} the ongoing construction^{and developmentof existing gravel road into cc} Road.

¶36

Sri challa Gunaranjan,^{learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted} that after obtaining^{permissionfrom the HMDA, the petitioners have started} the work on 14.03.2022^{and on 18.03.2022,somestrangefs, whoare indulged} in land grabbing activities,^{obstructedtheir work and also threatened the} residents of Landmark-Ill.^{The petitioners have given a complaintto} respondent Nos.2^and 3^{on 20.03.2022.The petitioners have also given} complaints to the^{Commissioner and DeputyGeneral of Policeagainst the}

¶37

I-K, J I w.P No 18789 of2022

¶38

¶39

highhanded action of the 4'r' respondent in not protecting the public road and interest of citizens rather taking sides of unscrupulous elements. Though the respondent police having nothing to do, have asked the petitioners to stop the work. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioners are approached before this Court by fi1ing the present writ petition.

¶40

Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, submitted that the respondent authority have given technical approval for the gated community.

¶41

Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, leamed Assistant Government pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions received frorn Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal Police Station, subrnitted that the respondent police have received a complaint from the petitioners as well as a letter from the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the said complaint, they made a GD entry. It is submitted that the respondent poiice have not interfered with laying of the road by the petitioners. Except registering the crime on the complaint of one Chinthala Yadagiri and investigating into the matter, the respondent police have not interfered with the petitioners' activity of laying road.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioners appears to be two folds. The first grievance is that the respondents have not taken action on the land grabbers

¶43

¶44

and antisociai elements, who are interfering rvith their propefty, and the second grievance is that the police have obstructed them lrom laying the road As far as the first grievance of the petitioners that the respondent police have not registered the crime is concerned, the petitionet's have an cfl-ective and efficacious remedy is to file a complaint against the concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and as far as the second grievance is concerned, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted that except registering the complaint of one Chinthala Yadagiri against petitioner No.1 and management of Landmark-Ill and Landmark-IV, the respondent police are not interfering rvith the activity of the petitioners.

¶45

Recording the submissions of the lean.red Assistant Government

¶46

Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

Sd/. I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' L-l!,,

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Principal secretary,^{Governmentof Telangana Dept, of l,4unicipalAdministration} and Urban Development,TeIangana^{Secretariate, 5th Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna} Rao Bhavan, NH-44,^{Hill Fort,Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana} -^500063'

¶52

The Metropolitan^{commissioner, Hyderabad[\iletropolitanDevelopment Authority,} Swarna Jayanti^{Complex,San.ieeva Reddy Nagar Road, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet'} Hyderabad - 500038.

¶53

3.Thetr,4etropolitanCommissioner,DundigalMunicipality,Dundigal-Gandimiasamma Mandal, Medchal-l,4alkajgiri^District.

¶54

The Station^{House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Near GlandPharma,} Gandmaisamma x^{Roads, Medchal-lr/alkajgiriDistrict,Telangana'}

¶55

One CC to SRl.^{CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate.IOPUC]}

¶56

6.TwoCCstoGPFORMCPLADMN&URBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

¶57

one ic to sRl.^{v. NARASIMHAGouD, sc FoR HMDA. [oPUc]}

¶58

One CC to SRl.^{N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR IilUNCIPALITIES[OPUC]}

¶59

g.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTe|anganaatHyderabad. lourl

¶60

v TR '.t

¶61

Two CD Copies

¶62

1 1 . One Spare^CoPY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412022

ORDER

WP.No.18789^{of 2022}

¶67

. ,- irTA is
,' i(
ii
s $\ ?stt
-t-
ol.i# ':

¶68

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy v. The Government of Telangana Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy v. The Government of Telangana Dept

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

K.Rajitha Vs The State of Telangana

J Amarnath Vs The State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Theenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy Vs The Telangana State, And 3 Others

Vuchuru Sudhakara Reddy, Vs The Telangana State

Sri. v. Balaiah and 17 others Vs The State of Telangana and 14 others