Dismissed

Somidi. Venu Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022WP/8613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the threat to demolish petitioner's sheds without a show cause notice. The Court directed authorities to issue a show cause notice within a week and refrain from interfering with possession until then.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue show cause notice to petitioner within a week; not to interfere with possession until appropriate orders passed.

Somidi. Venu Prasad 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

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8613 OF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Somidi. Venu Prasad, S/o. Late Raja ltzlou li, aged about 37 years, Occ. Business R/o. H. No.6-3-660, Arundhathi Nagar, Kisan Nagar, Karrmnagar Town and District, TS

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S

¶12

The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar,T.S-S05 001

¶13

The Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar, Rep. by its Commissjoner, Karimnagar Town, T.S-505 001

¶14

The Tahasildar, Karimnaga(Urban) Mandal, Karimnagar District, TS-505 001

¶15

The Station House Officer, Karimnagar 3-Town police Station, Karimnagar Town, TS-505 001

¶16

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Building Department, Karimnagar town and District, TS

¶17

7, Needa Laxmi, W/o. Swamy, D/o.Kummari Anjaiah, aged 44 years, Occ. House Wife R/o. H. No. 6-4-31 0l Al 1, Kaharkh-anagadda, Karimnagar,TS505001

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron 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 directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents No.2 to 6 and their sub-ordinates, in acting up on the complaints alleged to be lodged by the respondent No.7, threatening to demolish the existing tin shed consisting with three(3) rooms in the petitioner's two(2) plots beanng H.No.10-5-401/A/1, admsg.,264 Sq., yards and H.No.10-5-401/A/1, adms9.,209.22 Sq., yards, in Sy., No.85/C(both attached), situated at Kisan Nagar Locality, Karimnagar Town and Dist.,TS, without issuing any show cause

¶20

notice or otherwise^{to the petitioner, as highly iltegal,arbitrary and contraryto the} provisions of T S Municipalities^{Act, 2019 and violation of Articles of constitution} oflndiaandalsoamountstoViolationofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeand consequently^{direct the respondents more particutarlythe respondents No.2 to 6} and their sub-ordinates,^{not to particularlythe respondents No.2 to 6 and their} sub-ordinates,^{not to demolishthe existingtin shed consistingwith three(3)} rooms in the^{petitioner'stwo(2) pIots bearing H.No.,1 0-5-401/A/1,admsg., 264} Sq., yards and^{H.No.10-5-4o1lAtl,admsg,209 22 Sq, yards' in Sv} ' No.B5/c(both attached),^{situated at Kisan Nagar Locality, Karimnagar Townand} Dist., TS, in any manner^{withoutfollowing due processof law'}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{moreparticularly the respondents No.2 to 6 and theirsub-} ordinates, not^{to demolish the existing tin shed consisting with three(3) rooms in} the petitioners two(2)^{plots bearingH No.10-5-40"1/A/1,admsg'' 264 Sq} '^vards and H.No.10-5-401/A/1,^{admsg.,209.22 Sq} ,^{yards, inSy} '^{No BS/C(both} attached), situated^{at Kisan Nagar Locality, Karimnagar Town and Dist.' TS' in} any manner forthwith,^{pending disposalof the above W P}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner : SRl. BETHIVENKATESWARLU}

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1,2 and 4:GP FOR REVENUE}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo. 3 : SRl.V. SATYAMREDDY(SC FOR} KARIMNAGAR MUNICIPALITY)

¶26

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo. 5 : GP FOR HOME}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.6: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.7:SRI K. S. MURTHY}

¶29

The Court made^{the following : ORDER}

¶30

¶31

TIIE HON'BLE SNTT. JUSTICE LALI'THA^KANNEGANTI

¶32

WRTT PETITION No.8613 of 2022

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This writ petition is filed^{questioningthe action of respondent} Nos.2 to 6 threatening to demolish^{the existingtin sheds consistingwith} three roorns in the^{petitiotter's plots bearing H.No' i 0-5-401/A/l} adrneasuring 264 Sq.yds and H.No.l0-5-40llAll,^{admeasuring209.22} Sq.ycls in Survey No.85/C^{(botli attached) situatedat Kisan Nagar} Locality, Karimnagar Town and^{District, Telangana,withoutissuing} any show cause notice.

¶35

Sri B. Venkateshwarlu,^{learned counselfor the petitioner submits} that without following due^{process of law, issued noticeat the behest of} unotficial respondents,^{threateningand demolishing the existing tin} sheds in the petitioner's^{plots bearing H.No.l0-5-401/A/1admeasuring} 264 q.yds and H.No. l0-5-4011N1,^{admeasuring209.22 Sq'ydsin} Survey No.85/C (both attached)^{situated at Kisan Nagar Locality,} Karimnagar Town and District,^Telangana.

¶36

¶37

Sri V.Satyam^{Reddy,learned Standing Counsel appearingon} behalf of^{the 3'd respondent submits that they receivedan application} from unofficial^respondent -^{RespondentNo'7 and fbrwarded the same} to the task^{force. It is futhelsubrnitted that theyhave not granted} permission in^{favourof the petitioner till today'lt is subrr, itted that if at} all the respondents^{has to initiat any proceedings against the petitiorrcr'} they will^{followthe due} Process'

¶38

Hence, this^{writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents} toissueshowcausenoticetothepetitionerwithinaweekfiorlthedate of receipt^{of order and the petitioner shall submit his explanationwithin} one week and^{the respondentshallpass appropriateorders' Till such} time they^{shall not interferewith the petitioner'spossession'}

¶39

5 Accordingly,^{the writ petitionis disposeclof'}

¶40

6 Miscellaneous^{applications, pending if any,shall standclosed'}

¶41

SD/. M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGIST.RAR ':-,,

¶42

':-,, //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

¶45

The Principal^{Secretary' Revenue Department'Stateof Telangana'} iljirisai;^{secretariat' Hvderabad' T S}

¶46

The^{District Collector, KarimnagarDistrict' Karimnagar'T 5-505001}

¶47

The^{Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Karimnaqar'KarimnagarTown'} T.S-505⁰⁰¹

¶48

Karimnagar^{District,TS-505 001}

¶49

1. The^{Tahasildar, Karimnaga(Urban) Mandal'} wn Police^{Station, Karimnagar}

¶50

1. The Station^{HouseOfficer'Karimnagar 3-To} Town. TS-505⁰⁰¹

¶51

The Assistant Executive^{Engineer, Roads and Building Department,} Karimnagar town and District,^TS

¶52

One CC to SRl. BETHI^{VENKATESWARLU, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the State of Telangana,At} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

One CC to SRl. V SATYAM^{REDDY(SC FOR KARIMNAGAR} MUN lCl PALITY) Advocate IOPUC]

¶55

1O.Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOME, High CourtfortheStateof Telangana,At} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

1 1.TWo CCs to GP FoR RoADS^{AND BUILDINGS, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana , At HYderabad.[OUT]

¶57

12.One CC to Sri K. S.^{It/urthy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶58

13.Two CD Copies

¶59

One spare copy

GK "x

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510312022

iH? S ;,{ rr.
al
.)
o ? z Jul{ 2822
* i
!sPATc. :Q

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WP.No.8613 of 2022

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I

¶67

Somidi. Venu Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somidi. Venu Prasad 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

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

V.Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Sagarla Pavan Vs The State of Telangana

S.Anand Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Ghousia Begum Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation