Disposed

Syed Sulaman Yamani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/5306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and IA praying for direction to official respondents to consider complaints regarding unauthorized construction and take appropriate action within four weeks on representations dated 20, 23 November and 10 December 2021.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to take appropriate action on petitioner's representations within four weeks. Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Syed Sulaman Yamani Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE^{TWELFTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PE^{TITIONNO:s306o F 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sved Sulaman^{Yamani, S/o late Syed Sadath YamaniAoed about 32 years'} 6';8";i;;.,^{R/; H. r.ro.'it:r5-'a-lNl5+, r'loo'inagar'lioori shahDargah'} Ct'.linOiay"ngrtta,^{Bundlaguda, Hyderabad'}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Principal SecretarytvlA and UD} Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶11

2 The Metropolitan^{commissioner,Hyderabad MetropolitanDev-elopment} ili#;"[;. ffi;;;uGvr"i-r-1i^{cor'pte'x, Sanjeeva Reddv Nagar Road' Srinivas} Nagar, AmeerPet,^HYderabad

¶12

3 The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Rep' by its Commissioner'} 'anavan' iower tarit Bund Road' Hyderabad'

¶13

ontJ ri vr"iiipit

¶14

4 The Deoutv Commissioner,^{Manikondafi'4unicipality' Office at Sriram Nagar} i;i";;,"P;;;; W"ttii"^{soiietv,Kokapet, Ransa Reddv District'}

¶15

5 Mohd Arif, S/o^{MohdNisarAged Major, Occ Business' Rl/o H' No 19-4-} iaqtzzl^{kishanBagh, HYderabad}

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin tfre amaavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} ;i";;;;^{i; declare} -^{the inaction ot trre offtcial respondents herein in considering the} representationi-^{out"d20t11t2021 ,23t1112021and1011212021,} ;"tit;;;L iuf,"r"i, it is^{clearly mentioned that the 5th Respondentwith undue influence over} theofficialrespondentsobtainedBuildingPermissionandlayoutandtrlngto rr" ir[grr^{and unauthorledconstruction in the petitioner's propertyin Survey} No. 176 admeasuring^{ncOf -OO gts and in Survey No 232 admeasuring Ac 01-00} gi, toiul extent ot nioZ-oo^{gis sltuated at Poppalaguda village' Gandipet Mandal'} Hl"g, n;dov^{oistrict vioiaiingthe lnterim} !!l:l"lP"^{orderpassedin l'A No'} 283t2021 and^{t.A. No.301/42"1in O.S.No. q}tzozl bvthe learned ll Additional SeniorCivilJudge,RangaReddyDistrictasisillegal'arbitrary'and..unjust' Consequentlydirecttheoff.rcial,Respondentsconsideringthepetitioner.S Jated 20t11i2021,23t11t2021^{and 10t12t2021, not allot Buildins} ;;;;;;;i&s

¶18

¶19

Permission and stop the ongoing illegal construction in the petitioner's property in Survey No. 176 admeasuring Ac 01-00 gts and in Survey No. 232 admeasuring Ac 01-00 gts total extent cf Ac 02-00 gts situated at Poppalaguda village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District violating the lnterim lnjunction order passed in l.A. No.28312021 and l.A. No. 36'1/2021 in O.S. No.48712021 by the learned ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition 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 direct the official Respondents considering the petitioner's representations dated 2011112021 , 2311112021 and 1011212021 , to stop forthwith the ongoing illegal construction in the petitioner's property in Survey No. 176 admeasuring Ac 01-00 gts and in Survey No. 232 admeasuring Ac 01-00 gts total extent of Ac 02-00 gts situated at Poppalaguda village, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District violating the lnterim lnjunction order passed in l.A. No. 28312021 & LA. No. 36112021 in O.S. No. 48712021 by the learned ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶22

lA NO:2 OF 2022

¶23

Petition 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 permit the petitioner to amend the cause title i.e-, the name of the respondent No. 4 which inadvertently due to typographical mistake mentioned as Deputy commissioner manikonda municipality instead of the commissioner of manikonda municipality office at sriramnagar colony, power welfare society, kokapet, R. R. District in the above writ petition allowing the petitioner to carry-out the amendment by mentioning the Deputy commissioner manikonda municipality instead of the commissioner of manikonda municipality in the interest of justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. MOHAMMED SARSHAR AHMED

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No'sl & 3: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI.Y.RAMA RAO(SC FOR HMDA)

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRl. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC) Counsel for the Respondent No.5:NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA^KANNEGANTI

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.53O6 of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed^{questioning the inactionof the} official respondents in considering the petitioner's representations dated 20.11.2027, 23.LL'2021^and 10.12.2027, wherein it is^{clearlymentionedthat the Sth} respondent with undue influence^{over the official respondents} obtained building permission^{and layoutand trying to make} illegal and unauthorized construction^{in the petitioner's} property in survey No.176 admeasuring^{Ac.1-Ooguntasand in} survey No.232 admeasuring^{Ac.1-O0guntastotal ofAc.2-} Ooguntas situated at^{PoppalagudaVillage, Gandipet Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District violating^{the interim injunction order} passed in I.A.Nos.283 of 2O2l^and 361^{of 2O2l in O.S'No'487} of 2O2l by the learned II Additional^{Senior Civil Judge,Ranga} Reddy District.

¶33

Mr. Sarshar Ahmed, learned^{counsel for the petitioner} submits that the unofficial^{respondentismaking} unauthorized constructions^{without obtaining permissionof} layout and in spite of the^{repeated representations, the} respondents failed to take^{any action.Hence, the petitioner is}

¶34

W.P.No.5306 of 2022

¶35

¶36

constrained to approach this court by filing the present writ petition.

¶37

Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.2 submits that they have received a complaint from Syed Sulaman yamani and they have forwarded the same to the local municipality to take appropriate action. He submits that the survey numbers 176 and 232 mentioned in respect of these properties in an extent of Ac.2-OOguntas situated at poppalaguda Village, Gandipet Manda-l, Ranga Reddy District, they have not gfanted any permission.

¶38

Mr. N. Praveen Kr-rmar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that they will issue notice to the unofficial respondent and take appropriate action in accordance with law. He also submits that these are old constructions, however, he does not deny the fact that such structures are unauthorized structures.

¶39

Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶40

w.P.No.5306 of 2022

¶41

¶42

respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the representations dated 20.11.2021,23.11.2021^and 1O.12.2021 of the petitioner w'ithin a^{period of four (4) weeks} from the date of receipt of copy of the order.^No order^{as to} costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^pending in^{this writ}

¶44

petition shall stand closed.

¶45

¶46

Sd/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. The Principal Secretary^{MA and UDDepartment, State of Telangana'}

¶49

Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶50

1. ih; M;6i;oliian^{Commissioner,Hyde-rabadMetropolitanDevelopment .} - Arih;;it;, Swarna Jayanthr comple*, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road' Srinivas Naoar, AmeerPet,^HYderabad

¶51

3 i#A;;i;Lntr,6ieaiet^{Hvderabad Municipal Corporation'office at} - frlrniiipaf Bharrn, Lower Tanj< Bund Road, Hyderabad' +. ihe OSpuW iommissioner,^{Ir,4anikonda lVlunicipality, Office at.Sriram Nagar} ' coLnv-.-pi*ei Wetfare Society, Kokapet, RangaReddv District

¶52

s 5iJ'ic'tJ' b ir.'rtroHnil"r',r'LU^{SA-ri5fiAh Au} fteo^Advocate LoPU^c]- . 6. i;; ccs^{to -cp ron rradF[AoMNURBAN DEV,Highcourt for the state of} Telangana. [OUT]

¶53

z one ic to bnt.v.nnvn^{RAO(SC FOR HMDA), AdvocatetoPugl-.} .^. ir. o;; cc io^{snr. N.PRAVEEN kuNanR (sc FoR tr4c)' AdvocateIoPUC]} 9. Two CD CoPies.

¶54

One Spare^CoPY.

GBt

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412022

G 1Hc 5i.1 15:
( o
'J
oo 16 JUN zUA
zo
-4.
t)6'SPATC!,qc
,2-

ORDER

WP.No.5306 of 2022

DISPOSING CIF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

,5
f6-)
P2-

Syed Sulaman Yamani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sulaman Yamani 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

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mohammed Farooq Uddin. Vs The State of Telangana

E.Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Aavula Sowmya Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation