Disposed

Mahankali Chandra Mohan v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC24 Jun 2022WP/26824/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CrPC challenged interference with construction works. The High Court directed official respondents to serve notice on the petitioner and act according to law if deviations existed before disposing the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to put petitioner on notice and take action in accordance with law if deviations exist; disposed of the petition without costs.

Mahankali Chandra Mohan Vs The State of Telangana and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

.-\

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE^{TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^NO:268240 F 2022

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

S/o Late^{lvl.Ramulu'Aged 45 years' Occ ; Business Fl/o} Ir/ahankali^{Chandra ltilohan,} 12 F,^{New Maruthinagar-slroomgar' Ranga Reddy} H.no.^{1-5-146/5, Road No} District. .,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

,na. Rep^{by its principalSecretary Municipal}

¶12

1 . The State^{of Telanga}

¶13

AdministrationotptiJtt"iati"iauitdingt'HyderabadThe^{Greate'Hvau'"iJi'ri;;i;ipal c;tporation'L B Nasar'Hvderabad'}

¶14

nep^{oy its Zonal t9:il:Tfffi:} Greater^{Hvderabad Municipalcorporation}

¶15

3.^{The DePutYCommts} 'RESPqNDENTS

¶16

Sorrnagar^{Nagar urrcle 5}

¶17

that^{in the} lndia PraYing 226^{of the Constitution of} the^Hig hCo urt^{may be} Petitio^{nUnderArticle} d therewith' in the natuie^of ularlY^one stated^{in the affidavit {ile} circumstancespleased^{to iss} uea -declaring^{wrlt, order theor direction} action^of t^{more the} of^{responH.NoParti Cde} 13^-2-3418, nts^{No' 2Wesand 3 in} tern^{Portlontrying} it of^Mandamus in resPec to^interf ere^{with my} o. construction^{7 SY No'} 113,^Kot hapet^yil lage, ri^DistriS ct aroornaga^{without r anCircle} vlative^notice5'of in Plot^N Malkaigt and^vto on^Part al Manda N,4edhcal as^illeg al, arbitrarY ents^No2and3 ar^Zone,UPP ss^{of law} L.B.Nagand princl^wit ple^hout sofn^iollowing atural iustre^with due^t ice he^and ProcePetit^co lonsequentner's^con lystructdirectionthe peaceful^resPond possession^and not^t0 interfe perty ent^{of t} he^{said Pro} enloym

¶18

ces^stated

¶19

.A :1^OF2022 at^{in the} circumstan ple ased^to Petitio n^Under Section¹ 51 f the^CPc Peti^P raying tion,^theth re High^withC othe urt^pmay etitione^be rsP13-eaceful23418, o interfe i H.No

¶20

d3nott structlon^o

¶21

intdireposs^{he .1 16s} ession^{affidavitresPan} ondents^filed d nonP^enioYin art men^supPort Noⁱⁿ tofth^2an Plot^oNo' eP roperty ndal'7^SY.No' Me^l' e. dhcal 113,^conKoMa thaPet lkai glrl^v Districtillage ' Saroornagarwithout^any WeSte^rn Portio arZone,u ppal^Ma cess^{of law'} L.B.NAg pro

¶22

Circle⁵ ' t following^due nd^wlthou

¶23

notice^a PAL^{ADMN AND URB ANDEV} BHAK^{AR REDDY'}

¶24

GP^FORMUNCI

¶25

Cou^{nsel for the Petitlo} de^ner nt^{: No'1SRI.KIRANPALAK} SRI.S^{URTHIAMPAT H PRA} Cou nsel^{{or t} he the^ResPonResP ondent^Nos.2&3: SC^{FOR GHMC} Cou nsel^for

¶26

The^{Court made the {otlowingORDER}

¶27

{

¶28

[THE^{HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY} W'P.No.26824 of²⁰²²

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus^{to declarethe} action of respondents No.2 and 3, in trying to interfere with the construction being undenaken by the petitioner in HNo.13-234lB, western portion on pan in Plot No.7, Survey No.113, Kothapet Village, Saroornagar Circle 5, L.B.Mgar Zone, Uppal Ivbndal, Medchal lGlkajgiri District, without any norice and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Fleard learned counsel for the petitioner and leamed Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Gqporation (Gfil4g appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. Leamed counsel for the pedtioner has stated rhat even though the pedtioner is having building permission and also the work cornmencemenr reuer' the official respondenrs are interfering with the consrruction of the building in his land. Leamed Standing Gunsel for GFil4C, on instrucdons, has stated that the petitioner rhererore, the orriciar *ff;:';#H;.:*l

¶31

¶32

the construction activiry being undenaken by the petitioner in the subject plot.

¶33

Flaving regard to the above made submissions, the official respondents are directed to put the petitioner on notice and take necessary action strictly in accordance with^law, if^{there are any}

¶34

deviations as alleged^{by them.}

¶35

Subject to^{the above direction' the Writ Petition is disposed}

¶36

of.^{No costs.}

¶37

As a^{sequel, miscellaneousPetidons' pending if any' stand}

¶38

¶39

^'r?*1ii1S\3"P.'^'Jv I/TRUE^COPYI/ sEcTtoN^oFFICER

¶40

dministration^{Dept SecretariatBuildings'}

¶41

To cretary'^{I\luniciPal A} 1.^{The P} rinciPal^Se naatHyd erabad^' Hvd erabad^{Ir'4uniciPalCorporation'} oi^Telanga Greater

¶42

\ State issioner' al^Comm

¶43

1. The^Zon Hydera bad. The^GreaterHY derabad^{MuniciPal Corpo ration} L.B.Nagar tvcommissioner'

¶44

1. The^DePu al^{N a} a( Uircle⁵ o rrⁿ UTI

¶45

4.1th^{woCe Stat Cs} eof^to Te^{GP langFORM} anaNP^UNCIPAL at ALAK^HYd eraURTb^{ADMN AND UR} ad. Hl, [oAdvocatRED DY,elo^eeNl PuclSC^{oev, FOR GHMC uigh Court (oPuc)for} S.One^CC toto SR^SR I.KIRAI.SAMPAT H^PRA BHAKAR 6.^on eCC 7.^Two CD CoPies re^coPY

¶46

B.^One spa

¶47

\ ?i' *V

HIGH COURT

DATED:2 4tO6t2O22

ORDER

WP.No.26 824 of 2022

1P. IJ
t
<br>rll
!) 3 il Jiil ?,il
pll
.=,,'.,,',.

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS.

¶54

\ \c
3o >>--.
lol

¶55

Mahankali Chandra Mohan v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahankali Chandra Mohan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Gpr Travels Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Sri Ch.Damodara Charyulu(Temple Poojari) Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M. Thyagaraju, Vs The State of Telangana

Madavi Gangu Bai Vs Sri Rahul Raj Ps IAS

Harish Kumar Oza Vs State of Telangana

Kossireddy Tejas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others