Allowed

Rasula Koteshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022WP/5659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking a direction to the Grampanchayat to consider a legal notice regarding illegal constructions. The court directed the respondent to take strict action and consider the notice expeditiously within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's legal notice and take necessary action within four weeks, putting all parties on notice and affording opportunity of hearing.

Rasula Koteshwar Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5659 oF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rasula Koteshwar, S/o Late Pedda_llaiah, qged about 33 years,occ. Agriculture, R/o Kondapak village and mandal, Siddipet District, Telangna.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep By its principal Secretary, panchayathraj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Grampanchayat Ankireddypally village, Rep by panchayath Secretary, Kondapak mandal, Siddipet District.

¶12

3 Rasula Chinna llaiah, S/o Late Nagaiah, Aged about 55 years, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal, Siddipet District.

¶13

4 Rasula Yadan Rao, S/o Late Ngaiah, Aged about 53 years, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal, Siddipet District.

¶14

5 Rasula Srinivas, S/o Chinnaiah llaiah, Aged about 31 years, Oc. pvt Job, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal, Siddipet District.

¶15

6 Rasula Suresh, S/o Chinnaiah llaiah, Aged about 29 years, Oc. pvt Job, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal,siddipet District.

¶16

7 Rasula Ranjith, S/o Late Pedda llaiah, Aged about 30 years, Oc. Pvt Job, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal, S iddipet District.

¶17

B Rasula Narender, S/o Yadan Rao Aged about 26 years, Oc. pvt Job, Ankireddypally village of Kondapak mandal, Siddipet District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents No.2 in not considering the petitioner's representation through petitioner,s counsel on 25.11.2o21 for retaining the illegat construction in sy.No.375/A/l to an extent of Acres 0.08 guntas and Sy.No.375/D/2 to an extent ofAcres. 0.10 guntas

¶20

situated at Ankireddypally village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner representation through his counsel on 25.11.2021 and stay the illegal constructions in Sy.NO. 375lAl1 to an extent of Acres 0.08 guntas and Sy.No.375/D/2 to an extent of Acres. 0.10 guntas situated at Ankireddypally village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

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 direct the respondent No.2 to stay the illegal constructions raised by the respondent NO. 6 to 8 in Sy.Nos 375/All to an extent of Acres 0.08 guntas and Sy.No.375/D/2 to an extent of Acres. 0.10 guntas situated at Ankireddypally village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T BASAVAIAH

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI.M.RAM GOPAL RAO, SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8:---- NON APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶30

¶31

WRIT PETITION No. 5659 of 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The learned counser for the petitioner has filed proof of service-cum-Memo, dated 07.03.2022, wherein it is stated that the notices sent to respondent Nos.3,5, 6 and 7 were returned with the postal endorsement "Refused". Therefore, respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 are deemed to have been served. Insofar as respondent Nos.4 and B are concerned, notices were served on them, but they did not choose to enter appearance.

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the legal notice dated 25.11.202r sent by the petitioner to stop the illegal constructions being made by the unofficial respondents in the subject land situated at Ankireddypally Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶35

Having regard to the nature of grievance expressed in the present writ petition, without going into the merits or deme-rits of the case, the present writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the legal notice of the petitioner dated 25.11.2021 and take necessary action, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly putting all the parties on notice and affordlng them an opportunity of hearing.

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep By its Principal Secretary' Panchayathraj} Oepartment,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶40

¶41

I L

¶42

The Panchayath Secretr Grampanchayat Ankireddypally village' Kondapak

¶43

mandal, siddipet oistriciry'

¶44

One CC to SRt. T BASAVAIAH, Advocate IOPUCI

¶45

Two CCs to Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL Dt c"r.t t"iti,e-stri""oi i6rrngrna at Hydera bad tou;lvELoPME NT, Hish

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

One Spare Copy

MMA

-${k

t t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2910312022

ORDER

WP.No.5659 of 2022

1 g ST.A 16:
ll
li;l/q 1E Al'lE 2[U2
lir',
-jr
\ -:-'
\r., -/j
*: t::),r.1a, /--

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶60

WTHOUT COSTS

Rasula Koteshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasula Koteshwar 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

Kallem Chokka Reddy Vs Sri. Narasimha Murthy

M/s.New Jaibhavani Traders and Commission Agent Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthulla Chinna Ramulu and 2 Others Vs Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS

Sri B. Narsing Rao Vs State of Telangana

Manthani Division Handicapped Welfare Society Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.and 2 Others

Chittimalla Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others