Disposed

Nethula Bhumaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Oct 2022WP/35556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

October 21, 2022: The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking orders against unauthorized construction on the petitioner's land. The Court directed respondents to take appropriate action within six weeks based on the representation dated July 26, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to take appropriate action within six weeks on the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2022 regarding unauthorized construction.

Nethula Bhumaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LAI.ITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35556 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nethula Bhumaiah, S/o Nethula Lingam, Aged about 72^years, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo. H.No.4-322, Gandhi Nagar Street, Ponakal Village and Post, Jannaram Mandal. Mancherial District, Telangana - 504205

¶9

...pE.,oNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep, by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj And Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, tvlancherial District

¶13

The District Panchayat Officer, lvlancherial District.

¶14

The Commissioner, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad

¶15

The Ponkal Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶16

Banavath Thirupati, S/o. Balram Aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. Chintaguda Village and Post, Jannaram lvlandal, Ivlancherial District

¶17

Thpurani lvlohan, S/o. Venkatanarsiah, Occ. weder, aged 69 years, RJo. Kalamadugu Village and Post, Jannaram lvlandal, Mancherial District

¶18

Velupula Ravi, S/o. Ramnaik aged about 43^years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o. Lingaiahpalli Thanda, Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherial District

¶19

Elleshwari Ramesh, S/o. Narsaiah, aged about.62^years, Occ.Cell^phone Mechanic C/o. Sairam Automobiles, Mainroad, Jannaram Mandal, Mancherial District

¶20

Jarpula Sharathpavan, S/o. Laxminarsaiah, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 37 years, R/o. Lingaiah thanda, Ponkal village, Jannaram mandal, Mancherial District.

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia or"t;ffii:i-',fll: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring action of the respondent No.2 to 5 in not taking any action under section 42, 43, 113, 114(1), 6 and 7 of TS Panchayat Raj Act - 2018 and as^per the rules and as^per the LRS Memo No. 257 d|.26-09-2020 and G.0 M.S No. 131 dt. 31-08-2020^on the petitioner's complaint dt.26^-07 - 2022 made against the respondent^{No.6to1 0,} against illegal construction undertaken in the Petitioners land in respect of^Sy No.304 extent of 0-20 guntas, Ponakal Village and shivar, Jannarani^Mandal,

¶22

Mancherial District,^{as illegal, arbitrary, andtln constitutionaI and consequently} direct the respondent^{No.2 to 5 to take steps as per the representationof the} petitioner dt.26.07.2022 for stopping^{and also demolishingthe illegalstructures} raised by the respondent^{No.6 to 10 in the Petitioner land admeasuring Ac.0-20} gtS' in Sy.No.304 of Ponakal^{Village and shivar, Jannaraml,4andal,lvlancherial} District

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court rnaybe pleasedto} direct the respondents^{No.2 to 5 to consider the representationof the petitioner} d1.26-07 -2022 to^{stop the unauthorisedillegal constructionsover the landin} Sy.No.304,AdmeasuringAc.0-20gtsofPonakalVillageandshivar,Jannaram Mandal, Mancherial^{District, pending final disposal of the writ petition}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIK. RAMA KRISHNA}

¶26

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos.'1 to 4: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ} & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for Respondent^{No.5: SRI R' CHANDRA SEKHARREDDY}

¶28

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos'6 to 10: NONEAPPEARED}

¶29

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶30

'l Iil,. It0,tlt.E s\t't.,tt st I( I L \t.ll'H \ K,\\r.G.\l'l

¶31

WRI'l' I'1.'l-I'l'lO\ No. 15556 oh 2022

¶32

oru)EIt:

¶33

This writ petition is filcd rvith tlrc lbllou,ing prayer

¶34

"...1o issue a Writ Ordcr or dircction more particularly onc in thc rrature o['Writ ol'MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondcnt Nos.l to 5 in not taking any action under section 42. 4j. I I j. I l4( I ). 6 and 7 o1' TS Panchayat llaj Act 20Ill and as per rhe rules and as per thc l.R.S Menro No.257 dated 26.09.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.ll I dated I L08.2010 on rhc pcririoner's conrplaint datcd 26.01 :.0?)- ntade aitainst the respondent Nos. 6 to 10. againsr illcgal construction undertaken in thc petitioncrs land in respect of'survcy No.304 cxtcnt ol' 0-20 guntas. Ponakal Villagc and Shivar, .lannararn Mandal, Mancherial [)istrict, as illegal arbittary. and unconstit.utional and consequcntly direct the respolrdent Nos.2 to 5 to takc steps as per the representation of the petitiorrcr dated 26.07.2022 for stopping and also dcmolishing the iltegal structures raised by the respondent Nos.6 to I0 in the pctitioner's land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas, in survey No.304 of Ponakal Village and Shivar, Jannaram Mandal, Macherial District..."

¶35

'l'he lcarned counscl lor the pctitioner Sri K. Rarna Krishna

¶36

submits that the petitioner gave rcpresentation to respondent Nos. 2 o to 5 stating that the unofficial rcspondents without obtaining any pennission from thc Grampanchayat are proceeding with the

¶37

constrllctron llc savs that, ln Iact. thc petitiondr has rnaclc an application Lrnclcl tlre Riglrt to lnlirrmation Act as 1o u hclhcr iurr' pelnrission is granted in rcspect ol survcy No.30.l to an cxtcnl of' Ac.0-20 guntas in favour ol thc unofficial rcspondents.^.l'he rcspondents replied to the same stating that uo penrrissiorr is granted. I Ie sLrbrnits that when perrnission is not grantcd and u,hcn thc unofT'icial respondents are proceeding with tltc r'onstruction. the rcsporrdcnt Grarnpanchayat ought to have taken action lgainst thcr.n.

¶38

Mr. lL. Chandra Shekar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel submits that they have considered the representation of' the petitioner and rvould take appropriate action.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition .is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2022 in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks by giving duc notice to the unofficial respondents. As this court has directed the respondents to issue notice lbr passing any order. this court has

¶40

¶41

¶42

issucd personal noticc to the unolllcial respontlcnts in this writ

¶43

petttt0n

¶44

5 Accordingly, tl.rc writ petition is disposed ol.^-fherc shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

6 As a sequel, miscellaneous pel.itions pcnding il any shall

¶46

stancl closed

¶47

¶48

SD/.M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// &

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, 1. The Secretary, Department of Panchayat Ftaj And Rural Development, State of Telangana,, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶51

The District Collector, Mancherial District

¶52

The District Panchayat Officer,^{Mancherial District.}

¶53

The Commissioner, Department of Panchayat^Raj and^{Rural Development,} Urdu Hall Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad

¶54

The Secretary, Ponkal Grampanchayat,^{Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal,} Mancherial District"

¶55

One CC to Sri K Rama Krishna Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP For Panchayat Raj &Rural^{Development, High Courtforthe} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶57

One CC to Sri R. Chandra Sekhar^Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

1 0. One Spare Copy MBC LS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2111012022

//' 1tt E STATt -.<br>.,,,< 4t<br>::, 1E lt[\j [z
ORDER

¶64

WP.No.3S556 of²⁰²²

¶65

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

Nethula Bhumaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nethula Bhumaiah v. The 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

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

Pinjari Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sisir Chalasani Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS

M.Murali Raju Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation