Dismissed

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, v. Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

Telangana HC16 Oct 2023WA/991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the single judge's order in a dispute over land ownership and garbage dumping. The Court held that directing parties to approach the civil court for title determination did not constitute adjudication of title in the writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR^SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶6

WRI TAPPEALNO:991 OF2023

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^{PatentAgainst Order Dated} 2810612023 in WP.No. 492 of 2023. on the^file of^{the High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, S/o not^{known,Aged about Major, Occ Business,48 Years} R/o Flat No 2012, Highlinat Homes, Tarnaka,^{Secunderabad.}

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar, S/o^{Mamidi SadanandamAged about47.years} Occ. Software Enlineer, Represented^{by his G P A Ho-lder} -Sri^Rajendra Reddv S/o Sri Raqhupathi Ri:ddy, Aged^{about 48 yearsOcc.BusinessR:/o} Plot No 101 BlockB, Arya^tvlithra Crest,^{Sai Goutham Colony,Puppalaguda,} R R District.

¶13

2 Smt Mamidi Bhavani, W/o M^{Sandeep Kumar,Aged about 46 years} Occ.House wife, Represented by^{her G P A HolderSri RajendraRe99V,} 9l-o Sri Raohuoathi Reddy, Aqed abbut^{48 years Occ.BusinessRyo Plot No.101,} Block-E, Arya lr/ithra Cres'[,^Sai Goutham^{Colony, Puppalaguda, R R District.}

¶14

J The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its PrincipalSecretary,Municipal} Administration Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶15

4 The Manikonda Municipality,^{Repby its Commissioner' C92G plus-6'GP} Road No.5, Sri Ramanigai Colony,^{K P R Colony, Manikonda,R R District,} Hyderabad.

¶16

5 The Sanitorv lnspector, Manikonda^{Municipality, C92 G plus 6, GP Road} No.5, Sri R'amanagar Colony, K^{P R Colony,Manikonda,R R District,} Hyderabad.

¶17

The Station House Officer,^{Narsingi PoliceStation, R.R.District.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstanr;es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the impugned order in WP No. 492 of 2023 dated 2810612024.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI K.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR MA & UD

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : SRI G.MALLA REDDY SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND^KUMARSHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶29

s7.A.No.99L of²⁰²³

¶30

DGMENT: (Per t lon'bk .ln Ju'tLe ^4bltinand^{Ktnar.fhauili)}

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated^{28.06.2023 passed in} V.P.No.492 of 2023 by the^{learned Single} Judge,^the

¶32

present writ appeal^{has been filed.}

¶33

Heard leamed coursel^{apPearing for the appellaff,} Sri K.Krishna Mohan,^{leamed counsel appearing for} respondent Nos.1 and^{2, leamed GovemmentPleader} for Municipal Administration^{appearing for respondent} No.3, Sri G.Malla^{Reddy, leamed Standing Counselfor} Manikonda Municipaliry^{appearingfor respondent Nos'4} and S and Leamed^{Government Pleader for Home} appearing for^{respondentNo.6.}

¶34

¶35

It is the case of the appellant that^{he is} the^{owner of} Plot No.106, Sector-1, Block-B, in Sy.Nos.133 and^{138 at} Alkapur Township, Naknampur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, RRDistrict. The contesting respondent^Nos.1 and 2 have frled \X/.P.No.492 of 2023 contending that the said property belongs to them and garbage is being dumped in the said site and the respondent-Municipality is not clearirrg the said garbage. kamed Sngle Judgc uide order dated 28.06.2023 disposed of the said writ petrtion directing the respondent- Municipaliry to caus e ins pec tion of the site and verdy as to whether there is any such garbage and if the same is existing, then the respondentMunicipalitv was directed to take action within a period of two weels from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The dispute in respect of the ownership of the site is concemed, learned Single Judge has not interft:red with the same and directecl the appellant and the

¶36

¶37

contesting respondens^{to work out their remedies before} the competent Gvil^{C-ourt. Hence, the present writ} appeal

¶38

kamed counsel^{appearing for the appellanthad} contended that at paragraph^{No.6 of the order, leamed} Single Judge held that^{the respondent-Municipaliry shall} cause inspection of the^{contestingrespondents'site,} which would mean that^{the learned Single} Judge^has adjudicated the title in^{respect of the contesting} respondents. karned^{counselhad furthercontended} that the leamed^Single Judge^{has not given} ^ny oppornrnity to the^{appellant to file his counter or} explanation stating^{that the contestingrespondentsare} not the real ownen^{and the appellant is the original} owner. Therefore,^{appropriate orders be passed in the}

¶39

¶40

writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by *1s leamed Single Judge.

¶41

Learned Standing Coursel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 had contended that the contesting respondents/petitioners have approached this Cbun contending that garbage is not removed from their site and the leamed Single Judge directed the respondentMunicipality to cause enquiry and if there is any garbage, and it is existing, shall take action within a period of rwo weels, but the learned Single Judge has not decided the title between the appellant and the contesting respondents. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

karned counsel appearing for the contesring respondents had contended that gartage is br:ing dumped on the site of the contesting respondents/.nnit

¶43

¶44

IN those set of ci-rcurnstances,^the petitioners and contesting respondents^{have approached this Court and} this Court disposed of the^{writ petitionand insofaras the} title of the properry is concemed,^{the learnedSingle} Judge^{has directed the appellantand the contesting} respondents to work out their^{remediesbeforethe} competent Gvil Court. Therefore,^{the contention of the} appellant that the leamed^Single Judge^{has adjudicated} the title in favour of the contesting^{respondentsis totally} false and incorrect. Therefore,^{there are no meritsand} the writ appeal is liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶45

Flaving considered the rival submissions^{made by} the leamed counsel on either^{side, this Courtis of the} view that the leamed^Single Judge^{has directedthe} respondent-Municipality to^{cause inspection of the site} and if there is any^{garbage, remove the same from the}

¶46

¶47

slte, Learned Single Judge lras not adjudicated the title between the appellant and the contesting respondents. Leamed Single Judge has rightly directed the parti:s to work out their remedies before the competent Gvil Crun. Therefore, the observations made by the leamed Single Judge at parugraph No.6 of the order must be undentood that if there is any garbage in the site, the respondent-Municipaliry shall remove the same from the site and by merely sayng that "the contesting ), res ponde nts / petitioners' srte would not amount to adjudication of the title in favour of the conresring respondents. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified rn directing the parties to approach the competent Gvil C-ourt for adjudication of the title and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶48

¶49

08. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal IS dismissed. No

¶50

costs.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, I any, pending shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ,,rRUE coPY// "TJ;j:t:i',]H I

¶54

to'',. On" CC^{to SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA'Ad^vocate'[OPUC]} i. di;6c^{i6 5Hi rxnrsHr'rn uonnu, Advocate totYn?l} u..o"n Deveropment, 5. iil;66;6ine^{cp ron ruunicipal Administration} " ii;i 66Jrtioi t-ne state of relanlana at Hvderabad fourl a oie cc to sRr c.uarln"h;bEv^{sc Fb(r'r-0NtcteAltrt['s 1oeuc1} 5. Two CCs^{to the GP r6n'il"5rilE' High-Courtfor the StateOf Telangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶55

Trfuo^{CD CoPies.} BSK BS w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 611012023

JUDGMENT

1 e S IAT€ o
7
q
f,c 1 $tt 1t8 o
L) i,
;,/
* DES pl,1 C<br>

¶60

WA.No.991 of 2023

¶61

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

Io^c.4?+ "f1 i3 5

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, v. Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, v. Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

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

M.Vishnu Yadav Vs Govt. of India

A Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.S.Reddy

D. Chandra Sekhar Vs The Union of India