Disposed

Shree Manjunatha Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2023WP/31504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging interference with land construction. Relying on the respondent police official's categorical denial of interference and presence of ongoing property disputes, the Court held no further order was required.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending in the writ petition stand closed.

Shree Manjunatha Constructions Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TWENTIETHDAYOF DECET,BER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^N NO: 31504^{OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shree Maniunatha^{Constructions,represented-.by-. its.. Ma.laglllp} ,l'.Itl91' Y.Koteshwar6 Rao, S/o^{Kotaiah,aged 58 years, Rl/o Flat No. K 202, K alock'} Rainbow Vistas, Moosapet,^{Balanagar, Hyderabad.}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{represented by its Principal Secretaryto} Government, Home^{Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Commissioner^{of Police,Cyberabad, Main Road,Gachibowli, Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Station^{HouseOfficer, Madhapur P.SHyderabad'}

¶14

M.Srisailam, Sub^{lnspector of Police' Madhapur P.S' Hyderabad'}

¶15

Ridhima Agarwal,^{D/o.TejNarayan Agarwal,} eg-"-d 11^y9ar:'O.cg;, Business,-R/o.H.No.gZ,RoadNo.ll,BanjaraHills'Hyderabad,Telangana -^5000034.

¶16

(R - 5 is impleaded as^{per Court Order dated20-12-2023 in l'A'No'2of} 2023l.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of^{Mandamusor any otherappropriateWrit or Writs'} order or Direction,^{declaring the action of the Respondentsin interferingwiththe} construction activity^{of the petitioner herein overthe landto an extent of 4147sq} metres in Sy.No.58^{of Khanamet Village, serllingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy} District, as otherwise^{than in due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and without} jurisdiction and to consequently direct^{the Respondents to restrain themselves}

¶19

from interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner, in any ma nner whatsoever, as otherwise than in due process of law Award costs.

¶20

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner in the rand admeasuring 4147 sq meters in sy.No.58 of Khanamet Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as otherwise than, in due process of law, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4 : AGp FOR HOME

¶24

counsel for the rmpread Respondent No.5 : sRI MOHAMMED rsMAtL KHAN

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.31504 OF 2023

¶28

OIIDER:(ORAL)

¶29

A copy of the written instructions received by^{leamcd Assistant} Covernrnent Pleader for Home is^placed on^record.

¶30

It is submitted that the complaint lodged by^{respondentNo.5in} I;.1.1(. No. 1255 of 2023, dated 13.11.2023,^{was registeredtbr thc}

¶31

off'cnces under Sections 420, 447 and^{506 read rvith Section34} ol' I I'C. against Managing Partner of the^{petitioner-Cornpany,} Mr. Y. Koteshwara Rao, Chandraiah Yadav^{and othcrs and tlte} invesl.igation is taken up by respondent No.4. It^{is statcdthat neither} respondcnts No.3 and 4 have been interfering^{with the constructioll} activity of the petitioner nor have^{given threats} to^{thc petitioner.Thc} allcgation that respondent No.4 threatened^{the petitioner that tnachincrl'} arrcl thc cquipment at the site will^{be seized and f'alse cascs rvillbc} rcqistcrcd. is denied.

¶32

l. Irr vie'uv of the categorical statement made b1^{r-espondcntNo.4} that tlrcr-e is no interlerence of any kind^with thc^{cotlstrtrction acti\ it)' ol'}

¶33

¶34

the petitioner, no further^{orders arc requircdto bc passed.Horvever,}

¶35

this order shall not^{have any bearing with the propeftydisputebetween}

¶36

the petitioner and respondent No.5 and third^parties

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Ttrere shall be^no

¶38

order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel thereto, misccllaneotts applications, if^{an1', pending in}

¶40

the writ petition stand closed

¶41

SD/-A.V.S .PRASAD ASSISTANT^RE STRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFICER

1 2. 3. 4 5 s*-*******gl#u:":' 6 B'""qq?l{iil'q:*:'j^i;L'J,itfl l?"ii'l35"Y""lo"u"r

¶46

7 One CC^{to Sri Mohammeo} 8 Two CD^CoPies

SA GJP

t\i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212023

ORDER

WP.No.31504 of 2023

6E STAr F
(
q
t
ooJ 0 B ,iA\ 2ii2{ (t
-L
* i
OE SPATC

¶54

DISPOSING OF TIIE \'.P

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶56

o
s--itt"')^
$-

Shree Manjunatha Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Manjunatha Constructions 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

Tatineni Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Datla Lakshmi Konda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

S.Nusayr Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Jangam Srinivas Goud Vs The State Telangana

Musku Ganesh Vs The State of Telangana