Allowed

Narra Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023WA/968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals challenging single judge orders dismissing petitions against municipal road construction on private land. The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower orders, and directed municipalities to consider pending representations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31-08-2023 set aside. Respondents directed to consider appellants' representations and pass appropriate orders.

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^{3318 j}

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 966 AND 968 OF 2023

¶8

W.A.No.966 of 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 31-08-2023 in W.P.No.1491 5 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶10

Utkur Sumathamma, W/o Utkur Damodar Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ; Housewife, Rl/o.H.No.1-138/1, Rahimkhanpet Village, Athmakur Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

¶11

.....APPELLANTAA/RIT PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Mothkur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mothkur, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

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 respondents to conduct a denovo inquiry over the representations daled 21-04-2023 and 27 -O3-2O23 of the^petitioner to remove road laidⁱⁿ petitioner's property of open space in respect of house bearing No. 4-367, admeasuring 190 Sq.yards in Sy.No. 608, situated at Near Venkateshwara Theatre, Pothai Gadda, Mothkur, Municipality, Yadadri Bhongir District in the interest of^justice, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶18

Counsel for Appellirnt : SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDI)Y

¶19

Counsel for Resporrdent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND U RB,\N DEV Counsel for Responderrt No.2:^{SRI B.JAGAN MADHAV RAO, S{) FOR i/ltlNlc IPALITIES}

¶20

W.A.NO: 968 OF 2023

¶21

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^prefe:rr:d irgainst the order dated 31/08/2023 in the W.P.No.14896 of 2023 on the file of the Higl Court.

¶22

Between:^.

¶23

Narra Ram Reddy, S/o Narra Sai Reddy, Aged about:i3 yezrrs, Occ; Pvt Service, Fl/o.H.No.29-391121 ), V ajpayee Nagar, Neredmet, l/alkajrlir tvlandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶24

.....APPI;LL.A].II'WTIIT PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of^':elangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary lUunicipal Administratio r and Urban Development Departmr:nt, Secreta^-iat, Hyderabad

¶27

The Jangaon Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, J;rngaon, Jangaon District.

¶28

The District C ollector, Jangaon, Jangaon District.

¶29

...RESP ONIDI:t\ IS/RESPONDENTS

¶30

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶31

Petition Und :r Section 1 51 CPC praying that n the circu mstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the Hi(th Court m;ry be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a denovo inquiry over the representations daled 0210112023, 1611212022 and 2311112022 of the petitic,ner to remove C.C Road laid through petitioner's property of open plot a,1med:;uring^'100 Sq.yards in Sy.No. 464 situatel at Jangaon Town and lr/unicipality, Jargaon District in the interest of^justice, lrending disposal of the writ appeal

¶32

Counsel for the A6 pellant : SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAI1 IIEDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Re spondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN ,At.lD URBAN DEV

¶34

Counsel for the Resp( ndent No.2 : SRI RAM MOHAN REDDY, lic FOFI II/IUNICIPALITIES

¶35

Counsel for the Rr spondent No.3 : G.P FOR REVENUE

¶36

The Court made tl"e following COMMON JUDGMENT

¶37

t,/
:q

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶39

WRIT APPEAL Nos.g 66 AND 968 0F 2023

¶40

COMM N D ENT: (Per AKS,J)

¶41

Since the issue involved in both these Writ Appeals is one and the same, both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common^judgment.

¶42

W.A.No.966 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 31.08.2023,^passed in W.P.No.14915 of 2023 by a learned Single J udqe of this Court.

¶43

W.A.No.96B of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 31.08.2023, passed in W.P.No.14896 of 2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court

¶44

Heard Sri P. Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 in both the appeals, Sri B. lagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Municipallties, appearing for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.966 of 2023, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.96B of 2023 and the learned Assistant Government

¶45

AKS,J & IiRT],.J W.r|ios^(){16 & 968 ol2023

¶46

Pleader for Rr venue appearing for respondent No.3 in /V.A.No.968 of 2023.

¶47

For the ;ake of convenience, the Facts in W.l'.lJo.')66 of 2023 are hereunder d iscussed.

¶48

¶49

It is the case of the appellant that she is the: owrrer of house bearing No.4-367, admeasuring 190 Squere YarCs, in Survey No.60B situated near Venkateshwara Theatre,^rothai Gadda, Mothkur Municipality, Yadadri-Bhongir Distri:t. S;h,: acquired the said propert)' by way of registered Settieme 1t Deed, dated 12.07.2019. l'he grievance of the appellant is that tlre^-esponderrl- Municipality encroached part of the said land and iaid t1e road. In those set of :ircumstances, the appellant has subrnitl-ed detailed representations to the respondent No.2 on 21 .O:i.2023 and 27.04.2023, r'equesting to remove the road laid cr, tl're said land by encroachirg it. As no orders were pass,ld on the said representatiorrs, the appellant approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.1ro.14915 of 2023 and a learneC Sin,3lt: Judge of this Court, vide irnpugned order, dated 31.08.2-023, vras pleased to dismiss the r;aid Writ Petition, without appreciating any of the contentions r; ised by the appellant.

¶50

7, Learnc d counsel for the appellants cont.errded that the appellants in both the Writ Appeals submitted re p res(l ntations to

¶51

I I

¶52

-----7'

¶53

AXS..' & RRN,J .) W.A.Nos.966 & 968 of 2023

¶54

the respondent No.2-Municipalities and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have disposed of the subject Writ Petitions by directing the respondents to consider the representations of the appellants and pass appropriate orders. Without verifying whether the respondent-Municipalities encroached the lands of the appellants or not, the learned Single Judge has mechanically dismissed the subject Writ Petitions. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants had contended that appropriate orders be passed in both the Writ Appeals by setting aside the impugned orders, dated 31.08.2023, and further, direct the respondentMunicipalities to consider the representations, dated 27.03.2023 and 2I.04.2023, submitted by the appellant in W.A.No.966 of 2023 and the representations, dated 23.LI.2022, 16.12.2022 and 02.0L.2023 submitted by the appellant in W.A.No.968 of 2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶55

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders and the^learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for the^respondents in both the appeals submitted that since the^{representations} submitted by the appellants are^{pending with} the^respondent- Municipalities, the respondent-Municipalities^{wouldconsiderthe} same and^pass appropriate^{orders, in accordance with law.}

¶56

-l

¶57

This Court, having considered the sut,missio')s rnade by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the v ew that both the Writ Appeals car be disposed of by direcl ing the respondentMunicipalitie: to consider the aforesard repr-esen:a -iorrs submitted by the appellants in both the Writ Appeals and^p,lss appropriate orders, in ac< ordance with law

¶58

Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are al owed and the orders, datec 31.08.2023, passed in W.P.Ncs.14!r15 and 14896 of 2023, by the learned Single Judge of this Ccurt are se. aside. The respondent-tv u,.ricipalities are directed to⁽ onside' the aforesaid representatiols submitted by the appellarts irr both the writ appeals and pass appropriatc orders, in accord,:rnc: with law. There shall br: no order as to costs

¶59

Miscella neous Applications, if any, pending in these Writ Appea ls, shal stand closed.

¶60

¶61

//TRUE^COPY'

¶62

SI)/.B.Si.^CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR . lC,

¶63

SE{]TION OFFICER

¶64

¶65

The^{Commis ;ioner, Mothkur Municipality'Mothktrr'Yaca(lriEihongir District'} 2. The^{Principal Secretary, il;;i;i;;iIJ'inistratiorand LlrLranDevelopment} ' D;ffiili secretariit"di't" bt r"t'ng'na at Hvderalral' 3 The Commis;ioner,^{.lung;'o;'tt/;nit'paliiy-Jan99 rn' Ja rqaor District'}

¶66

a. Tne Dl.tri"t^{(;ollector, Jangaon' Jangaonulsln9l} ^ s rwo ccs to^{r;F' FoR Mdbt;DttlN IND 0nenNDEV' Hish courtfor the} -' Siaie ot feta lgana at Hyderabad [OUT] for the^{lltateof .felzrngana at}

¶67

1. Two^{CCsto r;P to, n"uJIJ",rf} 'gl''Co"t Hvderabad^(')UT)

¶68

Hvderabad^(')UT)

¶69

?. iil':,"bCi;^{iriEuiimamioiShashidharReddv'Acvocatrr llP'JCl}

¶70

one cc^{to Sri nr.nu, n'r"Jnl,in"jj[sC 5;1; Municipalitl:s!gl.YP)} 9. one^{CC to Sri B.Jagan [/;;h'"-C;6:5C For Municipa iti';s (oPUC)} 10.Two^{CD Cot ies}

SA^&.--

HIGH COURI'

DATED:0511012023

COMMON JIIDGMENT

WA.Nos.966 AND 968 of 2023

¶76

zla
r',:? iH t'
.?
f i 0[T 2$8

¶77

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶79

(I.'
N\ t,/
t\ o"

Narra Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narra Ram Reddy 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

J.Posetty Vs The. State of Telangana

Government of Telangana Vs K. Ilaiah

R. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The District Prohibition and Excise officer

Utkur Sumathamma Vs The State of Telangana

The Engineer-in-Chief, Vs J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

The Union of India Vs M.A. Jabbar