Dismissed

Smt. Kumkuma Rani v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022WP/23737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of officials to remove illegal constructions. The court noted the petitioner's claim of demolition but observed the respondent lacked a valid permission application as the petition was pending, holding he cannot construct without permission. The petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; there shall be no order as to costs.

Smt. Kumkuma Rani Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION N O:23737^{OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Kumkuma Rani, Wo.^{Chiliveru Ramulu, Aged about 53 years' OccHousehold} Ontimamidi Village, Gajwel^{[Vlandal,Medak District.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana,^{Represented by its Principal secretary_ tvlunicipal} AOminiitration aid Urban^{bevelopmenfSecretariat, Lower Tank BundRoad,} Hyderabad

¶11

The Municipal Commissioner,^{GazwelPragnyapur tMuriicipality, Siddipet} District

¶12

The Town Planning^{officer,Gazwel Pragnyapurlvlunicipality,siddipetDistrict}

¶13

The District Collector, Siddipet^District

¶14

G. Balaram, S/o. Bal^{Narsiah,Aged about 37 years,Occ:Agriculture,Gajwel} Village, Gajwel Mandal, R.R.^District

¶15

N. Venkat Reddy, S/o.^{HanumanthReddy, Aged about 48 years,Occ:} Agriculture, Rl/o. Siisinagandla^{Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Medak District'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue such appropriate writ or^{order or direction moreparticularly, in the} nature of a writ of Mandamus:^{a) Declaring the inaction of official Respondents,} more particularly Respondents^{no. 2 in not taking action for removing/ demolition} of illegal construction^{madeby Respondent no.5and 6 in schedule propertyi.e.} land admeasuring 1Bl^{Sq.Yardsin surveyNo.132lA situated at tt/udrajpally} Vilalge, Gajwal Mandal,^{siddipetDistrict (previouslylvledakDistrict) as illegal,}

¶18

arbitrary and violative of^provisions of Telangana^{MunicipalitiesAct 2019 and} Article 300 A of Constitution of lndia, b) Consequently,^{direct the official} respondents to remove / demolish the compound^{wall and other structures raised} inside the schedule^property constructed Respondent^{no.5 and 6.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 pleasedto pass} an order restraining Respondent no.5 and 6 from raising^{illegal structures over the} schedule property and direct the official respondents to take immediate^stepsto stop raising such an illegal unauthorised construction,^pending disposal^{of the Writ} Petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

N. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth Reddy, Aged about 48^years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Sirsinagandla Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Medak District.

¶24

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.6

¶25

AND

¶26

1 Smt. Kumkuma Rani, W/o. Chiliveru Ramulu, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Household Rl/o.Ontimamidi Village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District.

¶27

...RESPONDENT NO.l/WRIT PETITIONER

¶28

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

¶29

The Municipal Commissioner, Gajwel Pragnyapur Municipality, Siddipet District

¶30

The Town Planning Officer, Gajwel Pragnyapur Municipality, Siddipet District

¶31

The District Collector, Siddipet District

¶32

G. Balaram, S/o. Bal Narsaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o.Gajwel Village, Gajwel Mandal, R.R. District

¶33

(6th Respondent not necessary party)

¶34

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 vacate the stay granted in W.P.No. 23737 of 2022.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. VENKATESH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3:

¶37

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI M. KIRAN REDDY

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

I t

¶43

PTHE^{HON'BLE SMT.} JUSTTCE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶44

WRIT PETITION No.23737 of 2022

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶47

"..... to issue such appropriate wdt or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus (a) Dectaring the inaction of official Respondents more particularly Respondents no.2 in not taking action for removing/demolition of illegal construction made by Respondent no.5 and 6 in schedule property i.e. land admeasuring 181 Sq.yards in Survey No. 132/4 situated at Mudrajpally Village, Gajwa-l Mandal, Siddipet District (previously Medak District) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Teiarrgana Municipalities Act, 2019 and Article 300 A of Constitution of India (b) Consequently direct the official respondents to remove / demolish the compound wali and other structures raised inside the schedule property constructed Respondent no.5 and 6 ald ....,,.

¶48

Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave representations to the respondents on 07.O5.2O22 and 1O.O5.2O22 stating that the unofficial respondent is making il1ega1 constructions without obtaining any permission. He submits that this court by order dated rg.os.2o22 has directed the respondents to consider the said representations. It is submitted that the respondents have considered the said representations of the petitioner a',d therearter, after following the due procedure, they have demolished the said unauthorized structure. He submits that thereafter, again the petitioner is making constmction.

¶49

/ I

¶50

Mr. M. Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the respondent No.6 has made an application seeking

W.P.No.23737 of 2022

building permission and as the writ petition is pending, the respondents have rejected the said application on 23.06.2022.

¶56

There is no explanation forthcoming from the respondent No.6 as to what are the steps being taken by him when his application was rejected on the ground of pending writ petition a,d why he has not chosen to question the said rejection order is not known. However, the fact remains is that the unofficial respondent has no permission for constmction as of now. Whatever the circumstances, the unoflicial respondent cannot make const.rction without permission and if he makes ariy construction without valid permission, the respondents shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

The miscellaneous applications, if any shall , stand

¶59

automatically closed

¶60

SN/-P.PADMANABHA --' Asstsraur RESISTRAR^REDDY .,1 //TRUE^COPY// SECTION%FFICER To, I o^p m^e nt' 1 r State of he^{p rin Telangana, ci p ar s e c reta Secrete} u Y.?lli' [3,,4: TjT;,51 i"J -X:1'Ji8i|^oeve

¶61

Gazwel^{Pragnyapur Municipality'Slddipet}

¶62

1. The^{MuniciPalCommissioner'} District

¶63

1. The^{Town Planning officer,Gazwel Pragnyapurtvlunicipality,Siddipet District}

¶64

The District^{Collector, Siddipet District}

¶65

One^{CCto SRIA' VENKATESH' Advocate[OPUC]} . Effi ",S,.il:^{S,:,:%, Y: l}gfJ. fsit?f ga'l"Jo isrYi' * Devero p me nt' Hi s h

¶66

¶67

One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. for Municipatities [OpUCl B. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶68

One CC to SRt M. KIRAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

10.Two CD Copies.

¶70

1 1 . One Spare Copy

MP H5

$)1

I c I

\ t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811012022

/
/
/
31l i :117
ORDER

¶80

WP.No.23737 of 2022

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Smt. Kumkuma Rani v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kumkuma Rani v. State of Telangana

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

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vijayagiri Shivaji Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Naheed Nazeer Vs Telangana State

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed Vs The State of Telengana and 4 Others

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed Vs The State of Telengana