Allowed

Goli Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9128/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, the Telangana High Court restrained the Tahsildar from interfering with the petitioner's house construction on about 185 sq. yards pursuant to a valid building permit, subject to compliance with said permit and prohibition of encroachment on government land. Petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.5 not to interfere with construction pursuant to Building Permit Order No.225200/TKJL-12649/2022 dated 09.11.2022, subject to strict compliance with said permit and prohibition

Goli Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^s168 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9128 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Goli Yadagiri, S/o Chinnaiah aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, RUo plot No.7, Laxmi Nagar, Brahmanpally Raod, Turkayamjal Village, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Revenue Dtvisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 5 in interfering into the peaceful possession and house construction of the Petitioner on the open plot to an extent of 185 Sq. Yards, of plot No. 17 in Sy. No. 274 which is situated at Raganguda Village, Lakshminagar colony, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and

¶18

300,4 of constitution of lndia and also violation of^{principles of Natural Justice and} consequently direct the Respondents No.5 for not interfere^{into the Petitioner} peaceful house construction on his open plot to an extent o i185, Sq. Yards, of plot No. 17 in Sy. No. 274, which is, sittlatecl at Ragangulh Village, Lakshminagar colony, Abdullapurmet firlandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 No.5 for not interfere^into the^{Petitioner peacefulhouse} construction on his open^plot to an extent of 185 Sq.^Yards, of^{plot No. 17 in Sy.} No. 274, which is situated at Raganguda Village, Lakshminagar^colony, Abdullapurmet lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District,^pending disposal^{of the writ petition-}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.912a of 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioncr and Sri J.AInruth

¶28

Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶29

Petitioner herein is clairning that hc is absolute owner and IN possessor of open plot No.17 adtneasuring I Ii5 squarc yarcls Sy.No.274, situated at Raganguda Viltage, L.akshminagar^(iolony, Abdullapunnet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. IIe has also obtained bui lding pcrmit order No.225200lTK JL.12649 12022 datccl 09. I^I .2022 lbr construction of Ground Floor⁺ 1 Uppcr Floor'. In prool- of lhe samc, he has filed copies of building permit order, sale dcetl etc. Even thcn, respondent No.5 is interfering with the construction activity being canied out by the petitioner without [bllorving due proccdure taid down under law. There {ilrc, the prcsent Writ [)etition

¶30

l. Whereas, the learned Assistant Govcrnnrent Plcader lbr Rcvcnue, on instructions would submit lhat urtder thc guisc of construction in Sy.No.274, petitioner is tryin-e to eucroach inlo the (iovcrnrnent Land which is adjacent to the said propelly

¶31

¶32

In view of the said subrnissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondcnt No.5 not to interl'ere with the construction activity being canied out by the petitioner pursuant to building permit order No.225200/ t KJLD64()12022 d,ated 09.11.2022 without following due procedure laid dorvn under law. However, petitioner shall make construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order. If, llctitioncr encroachcs into thc Govemrnent land other than the atbresaid land, libcrry is qranted to respondent No.5 to take steps in accorrlance rvith lau,against thc petitioner.. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, the misccllaneous 1-rctitions, il'any, pcnding in the

¶34

Writ Petition shall stand closcd.

¶35

//TRUE COPY/I

¶36

sD/-c. PRAVEEN KUMAR / ASSISTANT REGIS'RAR / ,i^/

¶37

SECTIONbFFTCER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies MP GJP

I i I

i II I ff I

ii lt

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412023

,.( o r{ TFiE S i{
.,:
ii
\i
1',:: 2 t Apfr zo?j il
. , ORDER

¶47

WP.No.9128 of 2023

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

Goli Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goli Yadagiri 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 Scr Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 4 others

Sabavath Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Sriharsha Majety Vs Union Bank of India

Jogula Sammaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Vandanampu Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Makka Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others