Disposed

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022WP/3840/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the inaction of official respondents in considering his representation dated 01-01-2018 regarding unauthorized constructions by unofficial respondent No. 6. The High Court directed the official respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01-01-2018 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

t. I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABOO[,,.0^] (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3840 OF 20't8

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna, S/o Subba Rao, Aqed 44 vears. Occ: Business r/o H. No. 16-'138. Nethaji Road. Ayagaripeta, Saihupallf, fn-a'mmim OistricL'

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I lf.9^9lel" _qf-T9]qlgqu, rep. by its Principat Secretary , panchayat Raj and F(urat Development, Secretariat, at Hvderabad.

¶13

The Director of Town planning, State'of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Khammam.

¶15

The District Panchayat Office, Khammam.

¶16

The Gramapanchay-at, Kakarlapally, Sathupally(M), Khammam District, Rep by its Secretary.

¶17

6 Pli.Fqf Developsrs, Kakartapaili(V), Sathupaili(M), Khammam Diskict, rep. by rts Managing Director, G. Anjaneya prasbd.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the inactlon of the respondent nos.2 to 5 in considering the representations dt.2o-1201b submitted by the petitioner to stop the unauthorized constructions being carried out by the respondent no.6 in the rand in sy. Nos.13/ 2, 1s, 1st1 , 1grz, 3341212812, 334t2t28r112, 34otNA, g4otNAA and 341rAA situated at Kakarlapally(v) sathupally(M) Khammam District, without there being any approved lay out, even by closing the existing passage to reach the lands of the petitioner in Sy. Nos.334t2tZBtZl1, 334t\l4\t4tN2, as il egal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to stop the unauthorized constructions.

il2il

,/,

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.2 to 5 to consider and dispose of the representations subrpitted by the petitioner to stop the unauthorized constructions carried out by the respondent no.6, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI G. NARENDAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI K. SAI RAMA MURTHY

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.3840 of 2018

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

¶35

"to issue writ or directaon preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in considering the representation dt.20-1-2018 submitted by the petitioner to stop the unauthorized constructions being carried out by respondent No.6 in the land in Sy.Nos.13/2, 15, 15t1, 19tZ,334DtZBtZi 334t2t\Bt1t?l 340/4"/4; 340/A,/AA and 341/AA, situated at Kakartapa y(v) Sathupally(M) Khammam District, without there being any approved lay out even by closing the existing passage to reach the lands of the petitioner in Sy. Nos.334/2/2 81211, 334t2t45t41N2; as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to stop the unauthorized constructions".

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Pavan Kumar submits that the petitioner gave a representation dated 20',01'ZO1B stating that he is the owner of the property admeasuring Ac. 1-04% gts in Sy.Nos.334/2/2Bl2l1; 33412145141N2, situated at Kakarlapally (v), Sathupally(M), Khammam District, having purchased the same by way of two registered sale deeds dated 07 -04-2016 and 04-04-2016. He submits that the unofficial respondent No.6 has been undertaking d.evelopment works in the petitioner's land and highhandedly taking steps for closing the 25' road. He submits that the petitioner has obtained information under Right to lnformation Act and as per the said information, no permission has been obtained by the unofficiat respondent No.6 and hence, the petitioner gave a representation

¶37

¶38

LK. T
!V.P.No.3840 cf 2018 (<br>

¶39

dated20-0.1-20,lStotheofficialrespondentstotakeappropriateaction

¶40

on the said unauthorized^{constructionsand in spite of the same' no} action has been^{initiated. Learned counselfor the petitioner has drawn} theattentionofthisCourttothecounterfiledbytheunofficial respondent No.6,^{wherein at paragraphNo'6 it is statedthat the} unolficial respondent^{No.6 has made an applicationdated10-10-2016} seeking layout^{permission andthe saidapplication has been forwarded} to respondent^{No.2, that itself showsthat withoutobtainingany} permission, the unofficial respondent^{No'6is making constructions'}

¶41

Learned Standing^{Counselfor respondentNo 5 Mr' G Narender} Reddy seeks time^{to file counter.}

¶42

When a representation^{is made by the petitioner stating that} some unauthorized^{constructions being carriedout in his property' the} official respondents^{are obligated to considerthe same and act in} accordance with law.^{lt appears thatfrom 2018, the respondentshave} failedtoconsidertherepresentationofthepetitioner'Hence,theWrit Petitionisdisposedof,directingtheofficialrespondentstoconsiderthe representation of the^{petitionerdated 20-01-2018 and pass appropriate} orders in accordance^{with law within a period of six weeks from the} date of receipt of^{a copy of this order after givingdue notice to the} unofficialrespondentNo.6'AsthisCourthasdirectedtheofficial respondents to^{issuenoticeto the unofficial respondentNo'6' this} Court is not^{proposingto issue notice to him. No order as to costs'}

¶43

LK, J w.P.No.3840 of 2018

¶44

¶45

¶46

Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition,

¶47

shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/.K.SAILE DEPUTY REGIST

¶49

//TRUE COPY// SECTION ICER

¶50

To, 1. The Principal Secretary , Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, State of Telangana, Secretariat, at Hyderabad.

¶51

1. The Director of Town Planning, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶52

The District Collector, Khammam.

¶53

The District Panchayat Office, Khammam. 5. The Secretary, Grarirapanchayat,^{Kakadapally, Sathupally(M),Khammam} District.

¶54

Sri G. Anianeva^{PrasadManaging Director, Sri Ram Developers,} KakarlapalliM, Sathupalli(M),^{Khammam District.} . .

¶55

7 il;tdio Snt. rouirunu'PAVAN^{KUMARAdvocate} toPtJ.-cl. ^ 8. iwa CCs to Cp^{for Panchayat Raj and RuralDevelopment,Highcoun lor} the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} IOUJ

¶56

L i;;CG t" cp^{tdi Revenu'eHigh Court for the State of Telanganaat}

¶57

Hvderabad. [OUTI ro.oii,-cd to s'ri G. l'{arenoar^{Reddy, SC for Gram-Panchayat [oPUC]} ii.o;; ca 6 aii k. sai^{Rama Murthv,Advocate [oPUC]}

¶58

12.Two CD CoPies

¶59

13.One SPare^CoPY CHR SB .V

--'F

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:14t10\ZO2Z

ORDER

W.P.No.38 40 of 2018

()
j>
L\ 2 7 o[T 20uz o
'a1,
4't

¶69

f,,i?i,3.# 3 35# =^{wR rr P} Eil fl o N

¶70

,yV

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna 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

A. Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Cheeti Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Sajeed Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Valmiki Samaj Seva Sangh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Aribandi Seethamma Vs The State of Telangana

G. Adilakshmi Vs State of Telangana And 2 Others