Disposed

B. Muni Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2023WP/1956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus declaring respondent action to demolish property illegal due to alleged procedural violations. Court disposed of petition at admission stage, directing respondents to issue notice and consider explanations via due process before taking any action.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue notice to petitioner and consider explanations before taking any action.

B. Muni Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR'[IIE STATE OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY T}IREE PRESENT

¶3

TIIE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.\I. BHASKAR REDDY

¶4

Betrveen:

¶5

B. Muni Reddy, S/o Late B. Veera Reddy, Occ- Business, R/o Plot No.27, Sy.No.l31. AP Housing Board Colony, Gachibowli, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Rcddy District-32

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

ANI)

¶8

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

¶9

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-20, GIIMC, Hyderabad

¶11

The Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thcrewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner ovcr H.No.4-271 I,Plot No.27, Sy.No.l31, AP Housing Board Colony, Gachibowli, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and threatening to demolish the property which was constructed in the year 2010 by obtaining sanctioned plan vide Proc.No.BPS/2713lCir-XllWZl2008 dated 12-04-2010, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principlcs of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over H.No.4-27l1, Plot No.27, Sy.No. l3 l, AP Housing Board Colony, Gachibowli, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District;

¶14

IA NO: I OF 2023

¶15

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 not to interfere into the peacetul possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over H.No.4-27l1, Plot No.27, Sy.No. I 3 l, AP Housing Board Colony, Gachibowli, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

--.-----.._.

¶17

Counsel for the Pctition:r^{: SRI.K RAMA KRISHNA}

¶18

Counsel for thc Rcspon,lent^{No.l: GP FOR I'ICPL ADMN & LRt',\N DEV}

¶19

Counsel for the Respon,tent^{Nos'2 to 4: SRI.M.A.K.MUKHEED(S L FOR GHN{C)}

¶20

The Court made thc foll owing:

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

W.P.No.l956 oI 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This wdt pelition is being disposed of ot the odmission sloge with the consent of both porties.

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶26

"....... to issue a writ, order or direction more particutarty one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS dectaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over H. No.4-2711, Ptot No.27, 5y.No.13'1, AP Housing Board Cotony, Gachibowl'i, Sertingampatty Mandat, Ranga Reddy District and threatening to demolish the property which was constructed in the year 2010 by obtaining sanctioned plan vide Proc.No. BPS/2713/Cir-Xl/W212008 dated 12-04-7010 as ittegat, arbitrary and viotation of^principtes of natural^justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over H.No.4-7711, Ptot No.27, Sy.No.'131, AP Housing Board Cotony, Gachibowli, Sertingampatty Mandat, Ranga Reddy District..... ".

¶27

Heord Sri K.Romo Krishno, leorned counsel oppeoring for the pelitioner ond Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, leorned Stonding Counsel oppeoring for respondenls 2lo 4.

¶28

¶29

Leornr>d counsel oppeoring for lhe petitiont>r subrmits thot the petition )r is the obsolute owner ond poSSe ssrf,t ,:f house beoring N< .4-27l'l , Plot No.27 in Sy.No.l3l situoted ot A.P.Housing 3oord Colony, Gochibowli, Serilingompolly Mondol, Rongo Redtly District. The petitioner hos obtoined building permission vi Je proceedings No.BPS/27 13ICr-XtlWt/2008 doted 12.04.2010 ord conslructed building in lhe yeor 2010 without ony deviotions. However, the respondents, wilhortl isst_ring ony nolice ond wilhout following lhe due procedure prescribed under the Mrrnicipolities Act, ore lrying to demolislt lhe building of the petitio rer.

¶30

LeorneC Slonding Counsel oppeoring for tre Municipol Corporotion submits thot the respondents ore n rt in'erfering with the poss >ssion of the petitioner. However, if o ry deviotions ore found in the property in question, lhe respordents would loke oppropr ote oction in occordonce wilh low.

¶31

This Co.rrl, hoving considered the rivol subr"rissions mode by the portie:. is of the considered view thot lhis writ pelilion con be disposed of directing lhe respondents to foliow the due process of lorr before toking ony steps to demolisl the house of

¶32

*""'r'

¶33

¶34

the petitioner i.e.. by woy of issuing nolice to lhe pelilioner ond

¶35

considering the explonotion, if ony, submitled by lhe petilioner.

¶36

Wilh ihe obove direction, lhe writ peliiion is disposed of.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

As o sequel, the miscelloneous^{petiiionspending,} if ony,

¶39

sholl stond closed.

¶40

SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT ISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

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

¶45

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

¶46

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2O, CHMC, Hyderabad

¶47

The Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad

¶48

One CC to SRI. K RAMA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRI. M.A.K.MUKHEED(SC)[OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangan4 Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies

I{ICH COUtt t'

CVBR,.I

DATED: 2510tl2tt23

ORDER

WP.No.1 956 of 2ll2-l

¶58

WRIT PETITION IS DISPoSEI) OF WITHOUT^(,OSTS

B. Muni Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Muni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Gammon India Limited, Vs Mr. Krishna Babu

Sri a.Poshetty Vs Sri. Somesh Kumar

Ghanshyamdas Agarwal Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, I.A.S.

Penala Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana

Penala Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana

K Rajesh Reddy Vs M.T.Krishna Babu