Disposed

Smt. Daripally Sandya , Nellutla Lavanya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Sept 2022WP/36964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondent panchayat's alleged interference in constructing a house. The Standing Counsel clarified there was no actual interference, only apprehension, with respondents willing to act if construction deviated from the sanctioned plan. The Court closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without costs.

Smt. Daripally Sandya , Nellutla Lavanya Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY N/VO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36964 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Daripally Sandya @ Nellutla Lavanya, Wo. Narsimhulu, Age- 32 years, Occ- House wife, H.No 2-1-115 Boyigalli, Nangunoor Village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Panchayatraj anC Rural Development), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Panchayat Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet District

¶13

The Nungunoor Gram panchayat, Rep by its Secretary, Nangunoor Gram panchayat, Siddipet District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 rn the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actron of the 3rd respondent in interfering in sanctioned plan for the construction of petitioner House bearing permission No.GP/l/2020 dt.30.01.2020 without following due process of Law, highhandedly preventing finishing construction within the sanctaoned plan situated in plot no.'1 3, in Sy.No.994lA an extent of 150-50 sq .yards at Nangunoor Village and Mandal, Siddipet Diskict, without following due process l. of Law, as being illegal arbitrary and unjust and to grant.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondent No.3 not to rnterfere rn the construction of the petitioner House bearing permission No. No,GP/1/2020 dt.30.01.2020 without following

¶18

due process of Lar^,, highhandedly preventing finishrng^(cnstru:tion within the sanctioned plan sit ated in plot no.13, in Sy.No,994/A an extent of 150-50 sq .yards at Nangunor Village and Mandal, Siddipet District, p,enrling disposal of the main Writ Petitir r

¶19

Counsel for the Pe' tioner: SRl. ALLURI DIVAKAR REDD)' Counsel for the Re ,pondents No.1&2: GP FOR PANCHI\'I\T RpJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Re ipondent No. 3: SRI M RAM GOPAL ltAO (STANDING COUNSEL FOR ZPPS II/IPPS, GPSS) The Court made th r following: ORDER

¶20

AAR,J WP.NO.36964 ot 2022

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.36964 OF 2o22

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Challenging the action of the respondent No.3 Nalgunoor Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretar5r, Nangunoor Gram Panchayat, Siddipet District, in interfering with the construction being made by the petitioner in plot No.13, to an extent of 150.50 sq.yards, of Survey No.994/A situated at Nangunoor Village and Mandal, Siddipet District, without following due process of law, the petitioner has frled the present Writ Petition.

¶27

karned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that the petitioner has frled the present Writ Petition only on apprehension and that the official respondents are not interfering with the construction activity undertaken by the petitioner. That if the construction undertaken by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the official respondents would take necessary action against the^petitioner in respect of the subject property, strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

AAR,J \t P N,:).36i⁽ⁱ⁴ of 2022

¶29

¶30

(

¶31

Record: rg the above, this Writ Petition is^clos':cl.

¶32

Miscell ,neous applications, if any^{pending,sha I stand}

¶33

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

¶35

St)/. G. SIREESHA I\f;!;I STA NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// . ,.^{t -'',\ '12} SE ]TION OFFICER

¶36

To, 1 One CC to S tl ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Advocate [t)ptJ61

¶37

2 Two CCs tc GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU I

¶38

3 One CC 16^:;Rl M RAM GOPAL RAO (STANDING OOUNSEL FOR ZPPS, MPPS, GPS ;) IOPUC]

¶39

4 Two CD Cop es 5 One Spare⁽ opy

SDR

GJP

'*=

HIGH COUF T

DATED: 281t912022

ORDER

WP.No.369(,,4 ot 2022

¶47

'-.<br>..1L. 'i<br>-1ttt.
t -r' .
'J,+ ,
i i-r
2 i yrr,, 7O
il
| .//

¶48

CLOSING O:: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C If,STS

¶49

* Irl { \ft\r^\v,'

Smt. Daripally Sandya , Nellutla Lavanya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Daripally Sandya , Nellutla Lavanya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadepalli Lokeswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N. Ashok Vs The State of Telagnana and 3 others

Fourth Partner Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University

Smt. Ch.Krishna Kumari, Vs Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Smt. Ch.Krishna Kumari, Vs Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

T. Jaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others