Dismissed

Kadira Ravinder v. State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022WP(PIL)/130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana was made to hear a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the cancellation of a house patta and seeking demolition of structures on a plot identified as a park area. The Court held that the core issue pertained to private interest rather than the public interest and accordingly dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for cancellation of the house patta and demolition of structures was dismissed.

Kadira Ravinder Vs State of Telangana and 6 others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION^(PUBLI C INTEREST LITIGATION) NO: 130 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kadira Ravinder, S/o. Lachi Reddy, Aged about 35 Yrs, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-32, Neelojipally village, Kodurupaka Grampanchayath. Boinpally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶11

.,.PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad Rep by its Principal Secretary.

¶14

The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer Sircilla Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Boinpalli Mandal Rajanna Sircilla Diskict.

¶17

The District Panchayat Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶18

The Panchayat Secretary, Kodurupaka Grampanchayath Boinpally Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶19

Kusa Ravinder, S/o Ramaswamy, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Surpanch, R/o Neelojipalli village Kodurupaka Grampanchayath. Boinpally Mandal. Rajanna Sircilla Diskict.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 6 in not cancelling the house patta granted in favour of the Respondent No.7 with plot number 1032 in Sy.No.395 Neelojipally village, Kodurupaka Grampanchayath, Boinpally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I and not demolishing the structures and restoring the park area as allotted in the

¶22

approved layout as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 6 to forthwith cancel the house patta granted in favour of the Respondent No.7 vide proceedings No.A1/257512008-2 dated .05.2017 with plot number 1 032 in Sy. No.395 and thereby demolishing the structures raised over the plot number 1032 in Sy.No.395 and restoring the said park area in Sy.No.395 as allotted in the approved layout.

¶23

t.A.NO.1 0F 2021

¶24

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 then respondents No.2 to 6 to forthwith demolish the structures by restoring the said park area situated in Sy. No. 39li Neelojipally village, Kodurupaka Grampanchayath, Boinpally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District as allotted in the approved layout.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENTJE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.S : G.P FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI.c.NARENDER REDDY / SRI.M.RAMGOPAL RAO

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI.PONNAM ASHOK GOUD

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶33

\IIBITJ^EIITI9_N( EI I.)^No.13O of2O2t

¶34

ORDER: (t,er lt-Le Hatit)le ttLL, (:hef JustLce IJJJaI l3ttugaLl

¶35

This writ petition has been filed in the lorm of public interest litigation seeking the lollowing relief:-

¶36

"In view of the above submission, it is therefore praycd that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate wrlt or direction particularly one in the natturc of writ o[ mandamus declaring thc ar:tion o[ the rL,sp..,ndents No.2 tr-r⁽ⁱ irr not cancellinB the housc patta granted in favour of responderrt No.7 wrt]r Plot No.i032 in Survey No.395 of Neelojipatly Village, Kodurupaka Gram Panchayat, Boinpaily Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and not demolishing the structures and restoring the^pa-rk area as allotted in the approved layout as illega-I, arbitrary and u nconstitutional ald consequently direct respondents No.2 to 6 to forthwith cancel the house patta granted in favour of the respondent No.7 r'ide proccedings No.Al i257512008.2 clatcd .05.2017 with I'lot No. 1032 in Survey No.395 and thcrehy dcmolishing the structures raised over Plot No.l032 in Survey Ntl.395 and restoring the said park area in Sun ey No.395 as allotted in approved layout and pass such other ord.er or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit ancl proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶37

We find that on the same srrbject mal-tcr' Vur.P.No. 19864 of 2OiB has beeir filed esoousing private interest. That being the position €rld on going through the materials cn record, we are of the viel. th?tt isslle raised ir.: the public interest litiga-tion actuall.v brtrd,:rs on prir-ate interest.

¶38

Tht:relore, \l'e ar.' not inclined t(r irursuc with tirc public intcrest litigation. it is accorCingiy drsrrrissed.

¶39

4 . Miscellaneous applications pendin g, if an,y, shali

¶40

stand closed. I lo',l,ever, there shall be rro .trder a.s to costs.

¶41

SD/. N. RAJA GOPAL ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR ./ //TRUE COPY// dJri / SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶44

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

One CC to SRI.NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI.G.NARENDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶47

One CC to SRI.M.RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶48

One CC to SRI.PONNAM ASHOK GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

B. One spare copy

S.A. crPk

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712022

ORDER

WP(PIL).No.130 of 2021

¶56

ixE s r-a
(
2 7 SEP 2$22 .i)
,*
rE-s

¶57

DrsMrsstNG THE W.P(P.t.L)

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

ffr^
)

Kadira Ravinder v. State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadira Ravinder v. State of Telangana and 6 others

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

Uma Narayan Borbande Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP Vs A.S.N. Raju and 6others

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. Vs Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Sondi Veeraiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Sidda Gattaiah, Vs The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.

Mr.Mohammed Qasim, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh