Disposed

Surya Rao Voora v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WP/3235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a declaration and direction to erect a protection wall for an open agricultural well to prevent loss of life. The High Court found that the respondents had already considered the representation and fenced the well along the road. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without ordering further costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs as the matter was already considered and acted upon by the respondents.

Surya Rao Voora Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²³⁰ ]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3235 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Surya..Rao Voora,- S/o. Rajenshwar Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, _Rlo: 8-37 Suttanpur, Eligaid Mandal, peddapalli District, Telangana - 505525.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Stateof Telangana, The Rep by its Principal Secretary, panchayat Raj

¶13

Department, Secretanat Building. Hyderabad, Telangaha.

¶14

2 The District Collector, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶15

J The District Panchayat Raj Office, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶16

4 The Tahsildar Mandal Revenue Officer, Eligaid Mandal, peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶17

5 The Sub-lnlpector of Police, Jutapalle Police Station, Etigaid Mandal, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶18

b. The Grampanchayat rep by the Panchavat Secretarv. Gramoanchavat Sulthanpur Village, Eligard'Mandat,^peddapailyi Distiict, Karimnagai, TS

¶19

( R6 is impleaded as per C.O. dt.23l2lZO22 in l.A. No. Zt2OZ2.l

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 pass an Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a. To declare the action of the Respondents 3-4 in not acting upon the Representation dated 27.12.2021 in which the petitioner requested to restore the protection Wall/fencing on west side of open agricultural well of 100 years, which may cause for loss of life of general public/animais commuting at the edge of open well situated in the agriculture land Ac.2-9 guntas in Sy.No.23l, 229-230, Sultanpur Village, Etigaid Mandat, peddapalli District, Karimnagar, as

¶22

illegal, arbitrary, unconstltutional^{and againstthe principalof natural iustice and} in violation of Article 3004^{of lndian Constitution. b. Consequently,directthe} Respondents 2 to 4 to erect the^{protection wall / fencingwest sadeof openwell} and or permit the^petitioner to^{restore protection wall at cost of Respondents2 to} 4 in his agriculture land admeasuring^{Ac.2-9 guntas in Sy.No.231,229-230} ' Sultanpur Village, Eligaid Mandal,^{Peddapalli District,Karimnagar,in orderto} save the life of human and^{animals commutingat the edge of openwell in the} interest of^justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct Respondent No. 2 to 4 to^{restorethe safety wall to the west sideof his} open agricultural well at the cost^{of the Respondents in the petitioner agricultural} land Ac. 2-9 guntas in Sy.No.23 1,^{229-230, SultanpurVillage, Eligaid Mandal,} Peddapalli District, Karimnagar.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^SRI SUDARSHAN^MALUGARI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to^{3: GP FORPANCHAYATRAJ AND} RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP^FORREVNEUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.s: GP^{FOR HOME}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:^{SRI C. KALYAN RAO,}

¶30

SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶33

) \

¶34

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.3235 of 2022

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶38

" ... to pass an 0rder or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; a. To declare the action of the Respondents 3-4 in not acting upon the Representation d,ated 27 .12.2021 in which the petitioner requested to restore the protection Wall/fencing on west side of open agricuitural well of 100 years, which may cause for loss of life of general lublic/animJ commuting at the edge of open well situated in theigriculture land Ac.2-9 guntas in Sy.No.231, 229-230, Sulranpur Village, Eligaid Mandal, Peddapalli District, Karimnagar, as illegal, arbitrary,"u nconstitutional and against the principal of natural justice and in violation of Article 300A of Indian Constitution

¶39

b. .. _ Consequently direct the Respondents Z to 4 to erect the protection wall / fencing west side of open well and or permit the pelitioner to restore protection wa at cost of Respondents 2 to 4 in his agriculture land 11.:1..rlinq^{Ac.2-9 gunrasin Sy.No.231, ZZg_230Sultinpur} Viilage, Eligaid Mandal, Peddapalli District, Karimnagar, in order to save the Iife of human and animals commuting at the eclge if open well in the interest of justice...."

¶40

2' sri sudarshan Malugari, learned counser for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has made representatio n on 27.12.2021 stating that to restore the protection wa[/fencing on west side of open agricultural weil, as there is likelihood of danger ro the animars and human beings and it is also stated in the representation that for any loss, the respondents would be responsible.

¶41

3 This Court by order dated,23.O2.2O22 has directed the respondents to consider the representation

¶42

4 A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that

¶43

¶44

t \

¶45

pursuant to the orders passed by this courl, the respondents have considered the representation and they have fenced rength of the well to the side of trre road and erected a caution board. It is stated that open well is in dilapidated condition and is being dereriorared day-by-day and there is no base to erect the pores for barricades and because of which, the Gram Panchayat has got erected the u.ire fenci,g and the caution board' It is srated that the reliefthat is sought by the petitioner is arready considered by the respondents.

¶46

5' The relier that is sought by the petitioner is ro consider the representation dated 27.r2.202r. As the said representation is considered and the respondents have also fenced length of the walr to the side of the road' nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶47

6 Accordingl-v, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sl.rall star.rd closed.

¶49

SD/-T INVAS DEP STRAR ITRUE COPY// h-, SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, t State of Telanoana. The P1in6ip2l gscretary, panchayat Raj Department, ^^{Secretariat auiiding,Hyderaba'd,fefanoiiji er!v,urq} 5 jilE iiSliiSl 8i[:f; 1,",1; ifi 3iS,f,[?i?jtffi iB[iXEi re a n s a n a Mand'a r ne,'e" JJcjri JeilHnilio"ifi', ii,i, ped-da pa,i Di strict , +:;,k*:orr 5 I!: F"rU.lEeector of potice. Jutapaile potice Station, Etigaid Mandat, Peddapalli Distnct. Telangana.

¶51

¶52

<br>

¶53

^ ;ruq State_of Telangana at ,1iryifliiq?i'rffi{,+1#l#:::;.1T;:"Hyoerabad. toutt Hish'couri ror the state or reransana

¶54

' il:r:!;l"rf ?Jtr;revenue'

¶55

" L-fr8S;l"rf ffiot"' Hish court ror the state or retansana

¶56

1 1. One CC to Sri C. Kaivan n 12. Two CD Cooies^_ lao, SC for Grampanchayat, IOPUC] 13. One Spare bopy

u'a1v

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:261't0t2022

ORDER

WP.No.3235 ot 2A22

E :i TAT
(
c
fl
tc\o 11 (

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

)
{,

Surya Rao Voora v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Rao Voora 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

Nethula Bhumaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pinjari Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sisir Chalasani Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS

M/s Lamd Mark Developers Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sri Mekala Ramakrishnudu Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Lal Mohammad Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others