Dismissed

Penala Sadanandam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2023WP/5079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging interference with vacant land disputes and unauthorised construction. As the unauthorized construction had been demolished by the Municipal Corporation, the court found no cause for further orders and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous without costs. Miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Penala Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ] Ar^{HY D E RAB AD} H r G H^{c o u Rr'} " i JXj..:.lAT,'r^{ff 5, lE i.ti8#ii}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THETWENTY FIFTH DAY-OF JANUARY} rWO TNOUSNND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTIGE C'V' BHASKAR REDDY}

¶5

¶6

WRIT^{PETITIONNO:5079oF 2021} Between: ^^^.1^{.h/.,,r 56 vears Occu. Bustness} l:Hii*rmlil,?l:-",ff^{:?,!fifl?i3x;,lfl :fl ,*w:,',?J':t'-,::[]i3.;'iff}

¶7

¶8

1 The State of^{Telangana, rept by.itsPrincipal Secretary' Home Department'} 2 34 i;:'i'3it,'$ii:r?lift + ffi t fi:"'3 I ts,ii.Si :,'ytsng'fi i,^{ii !} ;^r :'hsa'Bptlonwaransac,v """v^{ffi G s13ti o n wi ra n e aI I}

¶9

"","#

¶10

i{:-ilglil:ail,*:"::,,rut;Ttril'1ffi^{]l3l3lin33"T'"#"u0""'"}

¶11

AND

¶12

7 tt{ttf uzTil;l*iT'i#;p3lh#:ffi^{H:rtu}"h,Hrilri:sr^} Co","r-iit.nut.^{GWIIC Warangal} ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith' the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issue a writ of Mandamusor any other appropriatewrit' orderor} direction,^{declaringthe actionof the respondents No 2 to 4 herein' in interfering} with the^{Civil disputes betweenthe petitionerand the respondentNos'5 and 6} herein, in^{respectof vacant landsituatedin Survey-No102/A' of Gorrekunta} Village, in^{Geesugonda Mandal' and also threatening the petitionerand his} associates,^{as illegal, arbitrary' without jurisdiction' in violation of Article 2'1 of the} Constitution^{of lndia. contrary to Law' and consequently directthe respondents2} to 4 herein,^{not to interferewith the civirdisputes between the petitionerand the} respondent^{Nos.5and 6 and alsofurther direct the RespondentNo'7 herein' to} remove/dismantle^{forth with' the unauthorised construction of compound wall} made by^{the RespondentNos 5 and 6 in the petitioners land to an extent of} Ac.0.16.%^{guntas situated inSurveyNo l02lA' ofGorrekuntaVillage} Geesugonda^{Mandal,Warangal District'}

¶15

il2il

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition undr r section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the ci r;ttmstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High courtmay be pleased to direct} the respondent No;.2 to 6 herein,^{not to interferewith the preac'eful possession} and enjoyment of tlte petitioners land^{to an extent of Ac.01 )li gtrntassituatedin} Survey. No.1 02/A, c f Gorrekunta^{village, GeesugondaManc aWarangalDistrict,} pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶18

1A NO: 2 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under section^'151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circt-mstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in ;upport of the^{petition,the High corrrt may be pleased to direct} the respondent No.7 herein, not to^{allow the RespondentNos.5 and 6 hereinto} make any unauthc.ised construction^{includingconstructio Iof compound wall} around the petitio ter's land to an^extent of^Ac.O.16% !lunlas^{situated in} Survey. No.102/A, o Gorrekunta^{Village, GeesugondaMandrl.W'arangalDistrict,} pending disposal of :he above Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Pel itioner: SRl. RAMA RAO^MAVIDI

¶21

Counsel for the Rer^pondent Nos.1 to 4:^{GP FOR HOME}

¶22

Counsel for the Rer pondent No.5: NONE APPEARED

¶23

Counsel for the Re:^pondent No.6: SRI^{SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA}

¶24

Counsel for the Re: pondent No.7: SMT PINGALI^LAKSHMI,

¶25

SC FOR WARANGAL MUNICIPAL^::ORPORATION

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶28

W.P.No.5079 of 202.|

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This wril petition is being disposed of ot the odmission sloge with the consent of both porties.

¶31

This Wril Petition is filed lo declore lhe oction of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. in inlerfering wilh the Civil dispuies between the petitioner ond the respondenl Nos.s ond 6 herein, in respect of voconl lond situoled in Survey.No.l02lA, of gorrekunto villoge, in Geesugondo Mondol, ond olso lhreotening the petitioner ond his ossociotes, os illegol, orbirtory, without jurisdiction, in viololion of Arlicle 2 t of lhe Consiilution of lndio, controry to low, ond consequently to direct lhe respondents 2 to 4 herein, not lo inlerfere with the Civil disputes between the pelitioner ond the respondent Nos.5 ond 5 ond for olher reliefs.

¶32

Leorned Stonding Counsel for respondenl No.7 hos filed counter offidovit sloting lhot on 27 .02.2021 notice hos been issued for unouihorized conslruclion roised by respondeni Nos. 5 ond 5 ond ofter conducting on enquiry in occordonce with

¶33

-,)

¶34

the provisi<,ns of the Telongono Municipolilies rrcl-2019 they removed tl re illegol ond unoulhorized conslruct orrs roised in lhe subjecl properiy of the wril petition. Therefore, n() couse survives in tt e writ petition for possing ony further or<iers.

¶35

Recording lhe obove submissions of lhe leor red Stonding Counsel, lh = Writ Petition is dismissed os nfruc uous. os no furlher order need to be possed. No costs.

¶36

As o :equel, lhe miscelloneous pelilions perrcling. if ony,

¶37

sholl stond c osed.

¶38

SD'- K. SiRINIVASA RAO ASS,IS;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( tt)

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to S ri Rama Rao^{l\ilavidi,Advocate} [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to 3P for Home, High Court for the State of T:langana^at ., Hyderabad. Ohe CC to Srnt Pingah [)UT] Lakshmi, SC for Warangal^{Munit:ipalCorporation} loPUCl 4. One CC to Sr i Sreenivasa^{Rao Velivela, Advocate} [OPtlC] 5 Two CD Copi :s CHR LS

¶43

¶44

i I I I I I I I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:25 0112023

ORDER

..,'i 6(l t'
a
",:
10 l$ ltB ,i
..L : :|i*i '-

¶49

W.P.No.50'i9^,cf2021

¶50

DISMISSIN'i l-HE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT^(;OSTS

¶51

@q,4 4, o(^rO 1o\dss

Penala Sadanandam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penala Sadanandam 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

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

B. Muni Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

K Rajesh Reddy Vs M.T.Krishna Babu