Disposed

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC22 Apr 2022WP/20182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the interference with his peaceful possession and construction activity by municipal and revenue authorities. The court directed the respondents not to interfere without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without following due process of law.

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²³⁰ I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 20182 OF 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Jagan Mohan^Reddy, Age 63^{yrs,Occ: GovemmentService,} R/o. H.No. 2-3-147, Road No. 1, Nagole, LB^{Nagar, Hyderabad}

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

ANI)

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^its Principal^{Secretaryto the Govemment,Municipal} Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Rangareddy,^Rangareddy District.

¶16

The Peddamberpet Municipality,^Rangareddy District,^{Rep.by its Commissioner}

¶17

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Abdullapurmet,^{Rangareddy District}

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{India, prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleasedto issue} an appropriate writ, order or direction^{moreparticularlyone in the nature of the Writ of} Mandamus, declaring the action of^respondent authorities,^{particularly the respondentNo. 3} and 4 in interfering into the^{petitionerpeacefulpossessionof house, as illegal, arbitraryand} against the principles of natural^justice and^{withoutdueprocess of law and withoutnotice.} Consequently, direct the respondents^{No. 3 and 4 not to interfereinto the petitioner's} peaceful possession of scheduled property;

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2022t

¶21

Petition under Section 151 of CPC,^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in the writ^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto directtherespondents} No. 3 & 4 not to interfere into the^{petitioner'speaceful possessionof scheduledproperty,}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRADEEP.T

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.l^: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN.

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.² &⁴

¶25

GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Szu N.PRAVEEN KUMAR,^SC

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

THE HOI ORABLE^{SMT JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶29

W.P.No. 20182 of²⁰²²

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Vrit Petition^{is filed questioning the acti'rn of the} respondents,^{particularly Respondents3 and 4 in interferingwith the} petitioner's^p )aceful^{possessionof the house 'withou' any noticeand} without due t 'ocess^{of law, as illegaland arbitrary'}

¶32

1 \

¶33

Sri T. Pradeep,^{learned counselfor the p€)titioner' submits} that the^petit )ner^{hasobtainedpermissionfor constrLction of a house} in Plot No.⁽ 5^{in an extent of 240 square yardsin Survey No 122} situated at^{tr athuguda Village,and as per the same' he is making} construction, however,^{without anyauthority, Respondents 1l and 4 are} interfering w th^{the constructionactivity Hence, th': petitionerhas} approached^{t ris Court.}

¶34

Sri N. Praveen^{Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the} respondentllunicipality,submitsthatthemunicipalauthoritieshave issued^{permi ,sion and the petitioner is carrying out tho construction as} perthesanconedplan.Hesubmitsthatthemunicipalauthoritiesare not interferin(^{with the construction activity'}

¶35

Lei'ned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Revenue seeks} time to^get in 'tructions.

¶36

Wt en the^{municipalityhasgrantecl perntissionand the} petitioneriscarryingouttheconstructioninaccordancewiththe sanctioned^{p en, if at all the respondents have any obiection' theycan}

¶37

LK, J \ry .P ,No .20182 of 2022

¶38

¶39

interfere with the petitioner's possession only after following due process of law but not othenrvise.

¶40

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

SD/.T.SRINIVAS

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

€D

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1' The Principal^{Secretaryto the Government,Municipal AdministrationDepartment,State} of Telangana,^{SecretaiiatBuildings,Secretariat,Hyderabad'}

¶49

The Distiict^{Collector,Rangareddy,Rangareddy District'}

¶50

;. il;^{pft;.berpetMunicip-ality, RangareddyDistrict,Rep.by its comrnissioner}

¶51

+. itt" Vfunauf^{Revenue Offiier'Abdullapunnet,RangareddyDistrict}

¶52

Two CCs^{to GPfor Revenue, High Courtof Telangana'at Hyderabad(OU) .} .^,--'

¶53

;. i;; CC, ,o^{cp for Municipal Aimn', HighCourtof Telangana'at Hyderabad(oUT)}

¶54

Z. One CC to^{Sri N'PraveenKumar,Standing Counsel (OPUC)}

¶55

one CC to^{Sri T.Pradeep, Advocate(OPUC)}

¶56

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COUR'I'

LK,J

DATE:22-04-202.

ORDER

a
{HE ST4 =s-,a.d<br>(
I
03 J Ul,l 7022
( jr.*
,l
<br>

¶62

wP. NO. 20182 0l 2022

¶63

DISPOSING OF T IE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTI

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Sri Heera Lal Bhai Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mostafa Askari Hemat Vs The Government of Telangana and another

M.A. Majeed and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kagithapu Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kasaram Ramesh Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana