Allowed

Apuri Kotaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Telangana HC26 Dec 2022WP/21221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of Writ Petition No.21221 of 2021 by allowing the petitioner's request for withdrawal and dismissing the petition, which challenged the construction of a temple on petitioner's land without Panchayat permission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw the writ petition. Petition dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

Apuri Kotaiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

[³²³⁰ ]

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEI,4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2122'l OF 202'l

¶7

Between:

¶8

Apuri Kotaiah, S/o. late Ananta Ramaiah, Age. 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Vutukuru Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

.._PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, (Panchayat RaJ Department), Khammam, Khammam District.

¶13

The District Panchayat Officer, Panchayat Raj Department, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶14

The Vishwanadhapalli Gram Panchayat, Vishwanadhapalli Village, Singareni mandal, Khammam District, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary

¶15

The Tahsildar, Singareni mandal, Khammam Drstrict.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Singareni Police Station, Sinagareni Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶17

Shivarathri Parvathi, W/o. Achaiah, Age. 35 years, Occ. M.P.T.C., Manikyaram Village, Rt/o. Vrswanadhapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

Shivarathri Achiah, S/o. Yenkaiah, Age.40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Viswanadhapalli Village, Singareni lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No-4 in not taking action against the respondent No.7 and 8 in constructing the private temple by name Maremma Thalli Temple without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat as per the G.O.Ms.No.35, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS-Il) Department, d1.22.12.2O14 in the petitioners land situated in Sy.No.370 to an extent of Ac.3-02 guntas of Vishwanadhapalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, inspite of the^petitoners representation d1.30.08.2021^is illegal, void and opposed to the Artrcles 14, 19,21 and 300 A of Constitution of

¶21

lndia and con: equently to direct the respondent authorilit:s not to allow the respondent Nc 7 and B for construction of the tempkr n question, in the petitioners land without obtaining any valid permission from the 4th respondent Gram Panchayz t as per the G.O.Ms.No.35, d1.22.12.2O14 lA NO: 1 OF 2011

¶22

Petition L nder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit f led in suppo( of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the respc ndent authorities to take immediate action irnd stop the illegal construction of the Temple by the respondent No.7 and 8 in petitioners land situated in Sy.N, r.370 to an extent of Ac.3-02 guntas of Visl lvanad hapalli Village, Singareni Manc al, Khammam District, pending disposa of the above Writ Petition

¶23

Counsel for the^)etitioner: SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA ttAO Counsel for the iespondents No.'lto3: GP FOR PANCHAY,AT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Re! pondents No.4&6: SRl. NARENDER REDDY SC (GtlAM PANCHAYAT) Counsel for the lespondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the lespondent No.6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the lespondent No.7,8: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.21221 of 2021

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a letter

¶28

dated 23-12-2022 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition.

¶29

Permission is accorded and the Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶30

withdrawn. No order as to costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall

¶32

stand dismissed.

¶33

SDI.G.S^IREESHA TRAR ASSISTANT

¶34

¶35

//TRUE^COPYI/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

To,'fffiffi.ffigffit;g"'i"';:'

HIGH COUITT

DATED:2611212022

ORDER

WP.No.21221^,cf 2021

/' :::: --
r<br>c.
,Y
N:.,:s 3ll
:= "l .l
:!
\
(>r
,- '/

¶45

DISMISSIN 3 THE WRIT PETITION AS V\II"I-HDRAWN WITHOUT I)OSTS

¶46

."\

¶47

Co{'"'k

Apuri Kotaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apuri Kotaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottapalli Subba Raju Vs Somesh Kumar

Balagouni Venkatesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana

S.Rajender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Habeeb Ahmed Al-aqaf, Vs The State of Telangana and 3others

Sri Vemula Parvatalu Vs The State of Telangana

Date Cafe and Lounge and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others