Disposed

Ravu Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC12 Oct 2022WP/21292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the failure of respondents to remove an encroachment on a public road despite notices. The Court disposed of the petition by ordering fresh notices to the unauthorized resident and outlining the procedural timeline for passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue a fresh notice within two weeks to the unauthorized respondent and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Ravu Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEONESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21292 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ravu Rama Devi, Wo. Late R. Suresh Kumar, Ag ed about 53 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H NO. 2-1-87, Gouda Street, Old Palvancha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ( Khammam )

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana and 2 others, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal administration and urban development department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Palvancha Muncipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Palvancha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ( Khammam )

¶12

Panuganti Lakshmi, Wo. Jagadeshwar Rao, Aged about 48 Years, Rlo.2-194, Old Palvancha Palvancha Municipality, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ( Khammam )

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondents in not removing the encroachment on the road the western side of the 3rd petitioners house inspite of notices is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Municipalities Act and as well as the blatant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the encroachment of the 3rd respondent in the above said road.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

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 2nd respondent to remove the encroachment of the 3rd respondent^at House No. 2-1-94, towards eastern side of his house situated at Old Palvancha, PalvAncha Municipality, Bhadradri Kothagudem District⁽ Khammam )forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petition rr :SRl. A JAGAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respor lent No-'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN UR3AN DE'/ (TG)

¶19

Counsel for the Respor lent No-2: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAFI

¶20

Counsel for the Respor dent No-3: SRI.P.V.RAMANA

¶21

The Court made the fol owing: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.21292 of 2O2^o

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is Iiled seeking the following relief:

¶26

"..-.. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2",t respondents in not removing the encroachment on the road the western side of the 3.d petitioner's house inspite of notices is illegai arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Municipalities Act and as well as the blatant violation of the fundamental rights^{guaranteed under} the constitution of India consequently^{direct the 2"d respondent to} remove the encroachment^{of the 3'd respondent in the above said} road and ....".

¶27

Mr. A. Jagan,^{learned counsel for the petitioner submits that} the^{petitioner's husbandhas constructed the house bearing No'2-} 1-87 at^{Old Palvancha 20 years back and thereafter'the petioenr} He submits^{ttrat the unofficial} has been^{residingin the said house'} respondent^{hasobtained Permlsslonfrom the resPondentNo'2} onstnrction^{of a house arrd also constmctedttre} municipality^{for c} is a^{road on ttre eastern side of the trouse of} trorlse^{and there} which^{is apublic road and even wtren the} resPondent^No'3 has^{obtarnedthe permission' tre has strown the} ?esPondent^No'3 It is^{stated ttrat a complaint was made by the} same^{as road'} the^{year 2Ol4 and' also another complaint} petitioner's^husbandin petitioner's^{son in the Year20 15 stating ttrat the} made^{bY ttre} o.3^{has encroached the publicroad andconstructed} rlsPondent^N

¶28

¶29

w⁾ .No.21292^{of 2022}

¶30

the^w all, the^{- espondent No'2 even after issuirrg n ltices dated} 11.11 .2OL4,^{2:-O2'2O15alrd 26'09'2O16' till trr(1ir]" no action has} been initiated 'l^them'

¶31

Mr' P..^{Ramana'learned counsel f'lr tireunof{icia-l} respondent^{s Lbmits that when the said notic3'; rve 'e issued' the} unofhciai res^{rond.ent has submittedhis repll' trth€ same and no} orders are pa ;sed^thereafter

¶32

Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned standing^{c()unselfor the} respondent r runicipality submits that thel'will issu,: a fresh notice to the unc Ticial respondent and take ap prop:'iate steps in accordance r "ith law.

¶33

Record ng the said submission of tltr: learned standing counsel, the writ petition is disposed of clirt:cting t:re respondents to isslre a f esh notice to the unofficia_l respon<lent enclosing the complaint g ren by the petitioner herein withirr a period of two (2) o^{weeks from he date of receipt of copy of the orrler and one (l) week} thereafter, t re unofhcial respondent shar sut,n'rit his explanation and thereaf' er, within a period of two (2) r.r.eek:r, the respondents shall pass e ppropriate orders in accordancr: ',rth law. There sha,ll , be no order rs to costs.

)

W.P.N?.ZLZ1Z of ZO22

The miscellaneous applications, if any shalt stand automatically closed.

¶39

SD/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// GD SECT]ON OFFICER

¶40

To,
1.	The Principal Secretary, Municipal administration and urban development department, StateofTelangana, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.
2.	Commissioner ,The Palvancha Muncipality, Palvancha, Bhadradri Kothagudem Diskict ( Khammam)
3.	One CCtoSRl.AJAGAN Advocate [OPUCI
4.	One CCtoSRl. P.V.RAMANA, Advocate[OPUC]
5.	TwoCCstoGP FORMCPLADMN URBAN DEV (TG),HighCourt forthe State ofTelangana.[OUT]
6.	TwoCDCopies
7.	Onespare copy
k	Nr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211012C22

ORDER

WP.No.21292 ,t 2022

/
l
2 E I'li;J 2822
.4. j'

¶46

DISPOSING C F WP WITHOUT CO 3TS

¶47

Ravu Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravu Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana and 2 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

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

SVs Advaith Homes Vs The State of Telangana

V.G.Gyaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Pannala Yadi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana