Allowed

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023WP/20624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that under the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983, the Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction over construction grievances. Consequently, the Court quashed the Lokayukta's orders and the subsequent notices and upheld the authority of the Municipal Corporation to act under separate municipal laws.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Lokayukta dated 28-12-2022 and 31-03-2023 and notices dated 27-03-2023 and 20-06-2023 were quashed, allowing the petitioner to resume construction subject to municipal law.

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁷⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20624 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Katla Rajitha, Wo. Sadaiah, Age. 45^years, Occ ; Housewife,^{Rl/o.H. No.6-8/1A,} Ramakrishnapur, Chityal l\ilandal, Warangal District.

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Hon'ble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana, Represented^{by its} Registrar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Telangana,^Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Municipal} Administration and Urban Development Authority^{Dept. Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶15

Greater Warangal Municipal^{Corporation,Rep. by its Commissioner,} Warangal District.

¶16

Smt. Bopparathi Vrjayalaxmi,^{W/o. Suryanarayana, Aged abou167years,} Housewifb, R/o.H.No.11-21-1^'l 1, Kashibugga,^{Warangal City/District.}

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226^ot the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularlyonein} the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{by settingaside orders, dated. 28-12-2022and} 31-O3-2O23 passed by the 1st^{respondent directing the 3rd respondentto stop} construction work of the^{petitioner in the open plot admeasuringto 192-93 Sq.} yards in Sy. Nos. 258/C, situated at Enumamula Village,^{Warangal Mandal} (previously Hanamkonda Mandal) and District and^{consequentlydeclarethe}

¶19

¶20

notices(lntimation), dated. 27-3-2023 and 20-06-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner as null and void.

¶21

LA.NO:1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent not to obstruct or stop the building construction work of the petitioner in the open plot admeasuring to 192-93 Sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 2581c, situated at Enumamula Vi age, Warangal Mandal (previousry Hanamkonda Mandal) and District.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.Nagendra Chary

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri^padala pravin Kumar

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri pasham Krishna Reddy, G.p For Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri S.Surender Reddy

¶27

The Court made the following Order : -

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.2O624 of 2 o23

¶33

ORDERT (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶34

Mr. R.Nagendra Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Mr. Padala Pravin Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶36

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government^pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for respondent No.2.

¶37

Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶38

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finaIly.

¶39

In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the orders dated 28.12.2022 and 31.03.2023 passed by Lokayukta, State of Telangana, directing the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, respondent No.3 herein, by

¶40

¶41

{

¶42

which the Petitioner^{hasbeen askedto stop construction r""ork} in oPen lllot admeasuring^Ig2 'g3^{square yards inSurvey} No.258/C,^{situatedat Erlurr,amula Village, WarangalMandal} and District^{until further} (previouslY^{HanamkondaMandal)} orders^{of Loka-vukta'}

¶43

4 . Ad mittedly,^{under the provrslonsof the Telangana} Lokavukta^Act. 1983. Lokayukta^{has no power to entertarna} grievance^{$'Lth regard to constructlon'}

¶44

The aforcsaid^{legal position has not been contested} by learne<l^{counselrvho appears for Lokayuktaas well'}

¶45

'lherefore, rt is evident^{that the Loka5rukta had no} authority^{tcr issue the impugned orders dated 28' 12 '2022 and} 31.O3.2023^{and consequentlythe Greater Warangal Municipal} Corporation^{had no authority to issue the impugnednotices} dated 27.03.2023^{and 20'06'2023 based on the directions of} the LokaYukta.

¶46

For the^{aforementionedreasons'orders dated}

¶47

28.l2.2022and31.03.2023passedbyLokayuktaandnotices dated 27.01].^{2023 and' 20'06'2023passedby GreaterWararrgal}

I I I I l I I

Municipal Corporation are hereby quashed. Hou,ever, needless to state that the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to exercise its powers to stop any illegal constnjction under the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶52

B' Accordingly, the writ petition is alrowed. There shalr

¶53

be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶55

shall stand closed

¶56

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Registrar, Hon'ble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶61

The Princlpal Secretary,. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Dept. Secretariat, State of Telanoana at Hvderabad.

¶62

The Commissioner, Greater Warangal Muiicipal Coi.poration, Warangal District.

¶63

Two CC's to G.P For Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departmenl High Court for the State of Tetangana at UyOeraUiOllO0iy

¶64

5 9n" 99^{to Sri R.NagendraChary, Advocate} tbpUCI

¶65

6 One CC to Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, Advocaie IOPUCI 7 One CC to Sri S.Surender Reddy, Advocate (OPUC).^'

¶66

8 Two CD Copies

SA GJP

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912023

ORDER

WP.No.20624 of 2023

STATE
.)a)
n1 $$ 16
) .nt
i
,(r'
i,

¶74

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶76

\o
fA )a

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katla Rajitha v. The Honble Lokayukta for 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

Nawab Tajamufuddin khan@ N.M. Moinuddin Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chalichimala Mallesha and 2others Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Mohammed Rafiq Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others

Peechara Hanumantha Rao Vs Co-operative Electric Supply Society (Cess)