Allowed

KannekantiYadagiri v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2022WP/7072/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order relates to a writ petition seeking mandamus to remove an unauthorized structure and encroachment of a public road by Respondent No. 6. The Court, satisfied that the respondent removed the structure and proved it via photographs, declared the grievance redressed and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs as the grievance was found redressed.

KannekantiYadagiri Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7072 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

KannekantiYad agiri, S/o Veerabraham,^{Aged 50 yearl occ Agriculture,R/o H.No.1-} 98, Dugunavelli^{(atiangurMandal, Nalgonda District' Telangana State'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, (Panchayat Raj and Rural} Development Dept),^{Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶12

District Collector,^{Nalgonda District'}

¶13

District Panchayal^{Officer, Nalgonda District'}

¶14

a. nfirOrf^{parishad Developmeniofficer,Kattangur lvlandal Nalgonda District} S Orgr"rruffi^{Gram Pancliayat,Rep bylfs Panchayat secretary'Dugunavelli} Villige, Kattangur^{lr4andal,Nalgonda rystrict.} . ^ ,

¶15

o. cril"l",^{n.lJiah, S/o [ate eipaian,R/o H No l-84' DugunavelliVillage'} Ka{tangur Mandal,^{Nalgonda District'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under^{Article 226 of the Constitution.of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in in"-rtti""ii-riLdtnerewrtn, the High c."Yl i?lb-"} oleased to^{issue Writ, order or direction more in the nature of [t'4andamus'} !!".111.n'inJ";;.ii";^{ot-i"-nutpondentNo.2to 5 not removins the un-} '"In"toulhrn"nt of public road made by the authorised^structure 'nO "f'u t ho"" bearino H No l -84' situated at ResDondent.No^{O Uy e'tlnO"ing"} Dugunavelli^{Village, x''t'=ng"" "lt/"niat' t"tatgonoa District' as illegal'arbitrary'} administrative^{d iscrim'natJrf ""i"l'ii""} "r^{nni 4' and 21 of Constitutionof lndia'} violation of^{section g'z ;;'d' 6i li-i"]ung'naPanchayatRai Act' 2018 and} consequently^{directthe nlJp#o*ttt"1"it9"i-t13 un-authoriiedstructureand} encroachment^{of pubric rJ"i-rro" by the.Respondent.No.6, hishousebearing} H,No.^{1 _84, siruated ut ouJ,]ir"erri virirg" KattangurN,4andal. Nalgonda District'}

¶18

I.A.N O:1OF 022

¶19

Petition Under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} grant lnterim Direction to Respondents to^{remove the un-authorised structure} ind encroachment of^{public road made by theRespondent.No.6, his house} bearing H.No.l-84, situated^{at DugunavelliVillage,Kattangur Mandal,Nalgonda} District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.RAMESH BURA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4^{: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURALDEV}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI.M.RAM GOPAL RAO

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.7O72 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.5.

¶28

This rvrit petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 in not removing the unauthorized structure and encroachment of public road made by respondent No.6 by extending his house bearing H.No. l-84 situatecl at Dugunavelli Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgoncla District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶29

The petitioner alleges that respondent No.6 has inherited the House bearing No. 1-84 situated at Dugunavelli Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 made unauthorized structure and also encroached the public road by extending his house.

¶30

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.5, on instructions, submits that the unofficial respondent has

¶31

¶32

removed the unauthorized structure made by him. He has also produced the photographs to that effect.

¶33

Having re gard to the same and also on perusal of the photographs, which indicate that the unauthorized structure made by respondent No.6 is removed, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶35

this writ petition shall stand closed

¶36

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY#. q,

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

Two CCs to GP^{FORPANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEV, High Courtfor} the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.} [OUT]

¶40

One CC to SRI.RAMESH^{BURA,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶41

a. One CC to^{SRl.l,4.RAIvl GOPAL RAO,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶42

Two CD CoPies 5. One spare copy S.A SW \Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510312022

ORDER

i '.-'; s r,'
(o
ci) 28 l.??2q?2
t
4*

¶47

WP.No.7072 of 2022

¶48

CLOSING THE W.P

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS. @#z

KannekantiYadagiri v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

KannekantiYadagiri v. 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

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of Telangana

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Gongalla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana and 12 others