Disposed

A. Ashok v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Oct 2022WP/20622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order disposed of Writ Petition No. 20622 of 2022 filed by a church managing committee against illegal construction by Dasari Paramesh. The Court directed municipal authorities to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the illegal structure and blockage of church access within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 18.04.2022 within six weeks by giving notice to respondent 5.

A. Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²³⁰ ]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20622 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Ashok, S/o. Venkat Subbaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ , Business Hosanna Minrstries Church, Opp. SBI Bank, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Municipal Commissioner, Qutbullahpur Municipality Qutbullahpur Main Road, Medchal Malkajgiri - 500 055.

¶14

3 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation Rep. by Assistant City Planner Circle No. 26, Kukatpally Zone, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Tahasildar, Qutbullahpur Mandal Qutbullahpur, Medchal Malkajgiri.

¶16

Dasari Paramesh, Sio. Late. Venkoba Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 308, Sri Anusha Estates, Shapur Nagar, lDA, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Manda, Medchal -Malkajgiri District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action against the respondent No. 5 who is making illegal construction in Sy No. 274 adm. 13 guntas out of Ac 06-07 Gts on the southern eastern side of the petitioner s church situated at Opp. SBI Bank, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutio na I and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 18tO412022.

¶19

¶20

|.A,NO:'f OF 2022

¶21

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 2 to 4 to demolish the illegal construction by the respondent No 5 in respect of Sy No. 274 adm. 13 guntas out of Ac. 06-07 Gts on the southern easteri side of the petitioner s church situated at Opp. SBI Bank, Shapur Nagar. Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.N.RAVI PRASAD

¶23

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

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI.CHATLA MADHU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.P FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : ---

¶27

The Court made the following OROER

¶28

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGAI\ITI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.2O622 of 2022

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This u.rit petition is liled seeking the following relief

¶32

'... .. to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action against the rcspondent No.5 who is making illegal construction in Sy.No.274 adm. 13 guntas out of Ac.O6-O7Gts on the southern eastern side of the petitioners church situated at Opp. SBI Bank, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 18.O4.2O22 arrd ....".

¶33

Mr. N. Ravi Prasad, Iearned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner has Iiled a writ petition i.e.W.P.No.2l I I of 2022 rvhen the unoflicial respondent is making iltegal constructions ald the same was disposed of on 18.01.2022 r,r'herein this court has observed that the learned stalding counsel on oral instructions submitted that the land on which the Strr respondent therein has made constructions belongs to the 4rlr respondent and the 4th respondent has already initiated action .rnd clemolishecl the construction made by the Sth respondent.

¶34

Learncd counsel for the petitioner further submits thilt after the orders are passed by this court, again on 15.O4.2022 in the absence of petitioner's oflice bearers, in the night hottrs, thc unofficial respondent has dumped the waste building mzrtcrialⁱⁿ thcir church place and also closed the way to their church ingress

¶35

w.P.No.2062Z ot 2022

¶36

\ \

¶37

arrd egress. He submits that though a representation is given to the respondents on La.O4.2022, no action has been taken by them.

¶38

Mr. Chatla Madhu, learned stalding cot-rnsel for the respondent municipality submits that they will take action on the said representation of the petitioner.

¶39

Recording the said submission of learned standing counsel, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the re pre sentation dated la.O4 .2022 of the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks lrom the date of receipt of copy of the order, by dr-rl,v giving notice to the unofficial respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

The miscellaneous applications, if ary shall stand

¶41

automaticallv closccl

¶42

SD/-N.RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

a^''

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principar secretary. Municipar Administration and urban Deveropment g.ep?fmgnt secretarrit, state of rer;ns;;;;i-Hfieiatao.

¶47

2 r'ne Muntcrpat Commissioner. Road. Medchat Matkajgiri - 500 ^e^utbullahpur 055. '^Muni6ipality -'r- 'r^{eutbullahpurMain}

¶48

J I he Assistanl Crrv planner. Creater.Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 26, Kukatpalty Zone, Hyderabad

¶49

4 The Tahasrtdar Outbuilahnur M3lgqt qlqqlrlpur, Medchat Matkajgiri. rwo ccs to Gp r oR MCpLADMN er.ro unanfu-drv Oci,liisii dilrt for. the State of Telangana. [OUTI

¶50

1. Two CCs to Gp F6R REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶51

9nu 99^{to SRt N RAV| PRASAD,Advocate} tOpUCl o8. Two CD Copies9n" 99^{to SRI cHATLAMADHU,} eorlirtliop-uEf 10 One spare copy

S.A SB{}o*

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14t 22
1 l-1;
(
oo 2 4 0Et ?tl?z t
-a'
\ :.J

ORDER

WP.No.20622 ot 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

fu=

A. Ashok v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ashok v. The State of Telangana and 4 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

Naluguri Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mrs. Farheen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Gurrala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sukhavasi Lalitha , Lalithamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

S. Shiva Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation