P.Someshwar Rao and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022WP/30509/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners challenged the respondents' interference with their possession of ancestral property. The court directed respondents to not interfere with possession without following due process of law, while also directing petitioners not to make any construction without obtaining permission from the gram panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' possession without following due process of law; Petitioners directed not to make any construction without prior permission from Gram Panchayat.

P.Someshwar Rao and 3 Others Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUST]CE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30509 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

P.Someshwar Rao, S/o. Srimanth Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retd. Teacher, R/o. H.No.15-30, Sai Vidya Nagar, Siddipet-s02103.

¶8

P.Yilay Kumar, S/o. Srimanth Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ. Retd. Teacher, Rl/o. 5-34, Brudavan Colony, Near Milam Garden, Siddipet, Telangana502103.

¶9

P.Praveen Kumar, S/o. Srimanth Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ. Govt. Teacher, FyO. Flat No.1-8-81/1 , Flat No.303, Astral Gardenia, Temple Alwal, Alwal, Secunderabad-50001 0.

¶10

P.Srikanth Kumar, S/o. Srimanth Rao, Aged 54 years, R/o. H.No.2-2114413/2, Flat No.00'1 , Supreme Residency, St. Augustine High School, New Nallakunta, ltlusheerabbd, Hyderabad-500044.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, At Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Gram Panchayat, Palamakula Gram Panchayath, At Palamalkula (V), Nangnoor (M), Siddipet District.

¶15

The Secretary, Palamakula Gram Panchayath, At Palamalkula (V), Nangnoor (M), Siddipet District.

¶16

The Sarpanch, Palamakuld Gram Panchayath, At Palamalkula (V), Nangnoor (lV1), Siddipet District.

¶17

Palamkula Gangadhar Rao S/o. Hemadri Rao, Aged 68 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Employee, Rl/o. Quarter No.A-21 , K.C. Camp, Temple Road, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District - 505498.

¶18

Respondent No-s is impleaded as per Court Order dated 01 .08.2022 in l.A.No. 2 of 2022.

¶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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in

¶21

the nature of writ of l\i'landamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering into Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., H.No.3_gg (Old No.3-41 ) admeasuring 6,233 Sq. Yards situated at palamakula Village, Nangnoor Mandal, Siddipet District (previously Medak District), as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the Respondents not to, interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners over the subject property, in the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

P*iton 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 restrain the Respondents from interfering with the^petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property i.e., H.No.3-99 (Old No.3-41) admeasuring 6,233 Sq. Yards situated at Palamakula Village, Nangnoor Mandal, Siddipet District (previously Medak District), pending disposal of the present writ petitidn in the interest of^justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ROHIT POGULA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDy, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: NONE APpEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

(

¶30

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.3O5O9 of 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The writ petition is liled seeking the following reliet

¶34

".... to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering into petitioner,s peaceful possession and enjo5rment of the property i.e., H.No.3-99 (Old No.3_41) admeasuring 6,233 Sq.Yards situated at palamakula Village, Nangnoor Maldal, Siddipet District (previously Medak District) as being illegal, arbitrary and contraqr to tl.e Articre rq, rg, 2r and 3oo-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjol,,rnent of the petitioners over the subject property in the interest of justice ald ._..,'.

¶35

Mr. Rohit Poguia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the joint owners and possessors of the subject house and the same is their ancestral property. He submits that the petitioners have constructed a boundary walr with mud bricks for the entire subject property leaving front side as open for ingress arld egress. He submits that after some period, due to rains, some portion of the boundary wall which was constructed with mud bricks rvas collapsed and thereafter, they have a"lso obtained electricity connection aLnd have been paying the property tax. He submits that in view of the clisputcs betrveen the family members, a suit vide O.S.No.107 of 2O2l was filed by the unofficial respondent against the petitioner on the fiie of Principai iunior civii iudge, Siciciipet seei<ing the

I I

L x. B &

relief of partition and at the instance of the relatives of petitioners, the respondent grampalchayat is interfering with the petitioners possession. It is stated that the petitioners in order to protect and safeguard from the encroachers have started putting stone khadies around the subject property and the respondents have stopped the petitioners from putting the same. It is submitted that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners possession.

¶40

Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the res.pondent municipality submits that for erecting the permanent structure or temporary structure, permission of the grampanchayat is mandatory arrd without obtaining the permission, the petitioners cannot construct the compound wall. He submits that they are not interfering with the petitioners subject property and as such, he submits that no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶41

In responsc to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rvhen the matter came up on 22.09.2022, a submission was made on behalf of the learned stalding counsel that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners. He also submits that a suit for partition is pending betr,veen the petitioners and their family members.

¶42

The petitioners have come up before this court stating that the respondents are interfering with their possession. It is specifically averred in the writ affidar.it that in order to protect arrd safeguard the subject

¶43

¶44

property from the encroachers, the petitioners have started putting the stone khadies around the subject property. Whatever the nature of construction whether it is permanent or temporary, when the petitioners are making the construction, they need to have a permission from the grampanchayat and without obtaining the permission, the petitioners cannot go ahead with the said construction of the compound wall.

¶45

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession without following the due process of law and the petitioners are also directed not to make any construction without obtaining the permission from the grampanchayat. No order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall

starld closed.

To,

SD/-M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶51

//TRUE COPY/I o,'

¶52

sEcTroN drrtcen

¶53

The Secretary, State^{of Telangana, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development,} At Secretariat, Saifabad,^Hyderabad,

¶54

The Gram Panchayat,^{PalamakulaGramPanchayath, At Palamalkula (V),} Nangnoor^(M), SiddiPet^District.

¶55

The^{-Secreiary, Palamakula Gram Panchayath,At Palamalkula(V), Nangnoor} (M), Siddipet District.

¶56

ihe Sarpanch, Palamakula^{Gram Panchayath,At Palamalkula(V)' Nangnoor} (rU), Siddipet District.

¶57

One CC to SRI ROHIT^{POGULA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP^{for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development,HighCourt for the} State of Telangana at^Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

l:6ne CC to SRI^{R. CHANDRASHEKARREDDY,S.C' for Municipalities} loPUCl

¶60

¶61

B. Two CD CoPies.

¶62

One Spare^CoPY

t!4P

si$$'

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2011012022

e s fArE
{
</
a v2
/-)
[ 4 rl'J\ ?[11 l}o
o
,.,Q
"''
ORDER

¶68

WP.No.30509^{of 2022}

¶69

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶70

?, ').'-
t\j)l'/

P.Someshwar Rao and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Someshwar Rao and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

P. Sulochana Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddagunty Raghupathi, Vs The State of Telangana

Moguloju Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Kamani Madhusudhan Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Jojappa Pasala Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Uppu Jagadishwar Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others