Allowed

Smt.S.Sri Lakshmi v. Government of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/1082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought declaration that their plots in Sy.Nos.562 and 588, Pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra Village be treated as private property since not saved under the Urban Land Ceiling Repealing Act. Relying on an earlier batch order in W.P.No.19097 of 2024, and with no objection from the Government Pleader, the writ petition was allowed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.S.Sri Lakshmi Vs Government of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IVIARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1082 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Smt.S.Sri Lakshmi, W/o.S.Adiseshagiri, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, Rlo.1-4-21219, Green Park Enclave, ECIL Post, Kapra, Hyderabad 62.

¶9

N.Anil Kishore @ Mohammed Ahmed, S/o.late S.Narayana Swamy, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.'101-1^'lg, West lvlarredpally, Secunderabad.

¶10

Smt.N. Surya Kumari,, W/o.late L.Anand Sagar Netha, Aged about 59^years, Occ. Housewife, RJo.Plot No.96, Pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra, Secunderabad.

¶11

Smt.B.Renuka,, W/o.B.Rain Reddy, Aged about 48^years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo.1-4-210157/8, Pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra, ECIL, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt.Bhuvanagiri Nagaranr,, W/o. B.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 53^years,Occ. Housewife, R/o.30-265/60/421 1, Gokul Nagar, Dr.AS Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

M.Anand Kumar,, S/o.M.Sampatha Chary, Aged about 38^years, Occ. Purohith, R/o.H.No.4-1-450, Ranganadha Swamy Temple, Shivali Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶14

Smt.S.Sneha,, Wo.Mahesh. Aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife,^Rl/o.1- 11/102, Saipriya Colony, Dammaiguda, Keesara, I/edchal Mal kalgiri^District.

¶15

Smt.Palani Shankari Devi,, W/o.S.Palani, Aged about 44^years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o.H.No. 1 -4-2 1 1 /28, Pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra, Hyderabad.

¶16

G.Sai Avinash,, S/o.G.Chandrasekhar, Aged about 38^years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H. No. 1 0-3-251 1, East Marred^pally, Secunderabad.

¶17

'10. R.Sudharshan,, S/d.K.Ranga Rajan, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Software Engineer, Rl/o.Plot No-2, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Kapra, Hyderabad.

¶18

1 1. Smt.Beeram Sunitha,, W/o.B.Anand, Aged about 54 years, Occ- Service, R/o. H.No.6-6-425, Behind Praga Tools, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad.

¶19

Beeram Anand,, S/o.late B.Sriramulu, Aged about 65^years, Occ. Retd.Service, R:/o.H.No.6-6-425, Behind Praga Tools,^Gandhinagar, Secunderabad

¶20

,..PETITIONERS

¶21

AND

¶22

1 Government of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue^(Urban Land Ceiling), Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶23

2 Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Rep.by its Special Officer and Competent Authority, Cha nd ratok Comftex, t trrp jttV,-HVO"oOii]

¶24

Grealer Hyderabad I/unicioal Corporation, Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, Hyderabad

¶25

4 The Tahsildar. Keesara IVandar, R.R.District (now tVledchar-Markajgiri District).

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of [vandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the aclion of the Respondents in not treating the property of the Petitioners in Sy.Nos.562 and 5gg, pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra Village, R'R'District (now Medchar-Markajgiri District) as a private property though the same is not saved under the Urban Land ceiring Repearing Act which has come into force on 2r.3.2oog as iflegar, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the Respondents to treat the said property of the petitioners in the said survey numbers as a private property and not to interfere with the rights of the Petitioners in the said survey numbers.

¶28

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶29

Petition under section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant interim directron directing the Respondents not to interfere with the peacefur possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in their respective prots faring in Sy.Nos.562 and 588, pradhamapuri Colony, Kapra Village, R.R.District (now Medcha l-Ma lkajgiri District).

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LINGAMPELLY RAVTNDER

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2&4 : Gp FOR REVENUE

¶32

counsel for the Respondents No.3 : sRt M.DURGA PRASAD, sc FoR GHMc The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION^{No.l082 0F 2024}

¶34

ORDER:^(ORAL)

¶35

This writ Petition IS filed by the Petitioner^{seeking the}

¶36

following^relief:

¶37

"...declaring^{the action of the respondentsin not trcatlng} the property^{of thc Petitioners in Sy'Nos'562 & 588'} Pradhamapuri^{Colony, Kapra Village'R'R' District(now} Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District)as a private propertl'though} the same is^{not saved under thc UrbanLandCeiling} Repealing^{Act which has comeinto fbrceon 27 03 2008as} itlegal, arbitrary^{and withoutjurisdiction'"}

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel^{for the petitioners submitted that the subject} matter in^{this writ petition is squarely coveredby the orderdated} 13.lz.zlz3passedbythis^{Court in W'P' No'19097of 2O24and batch'}

¶40

It is submitted^{that the petitioners hereinare simitarly placedas} that of the^{petitionersin the abovebatch of cases' Learned counsel} referred^{to paragraphNo'10 of the common order dated 13'12'2023} and submitted^{that the subjectland/plots in Kapra Village did not vest} in the Government^{under the provisionsof Urban LandCeiling Act'} 1976 which^{is the subject matter of C'C' Nos'Gl/1843/1976'}

¶41

¶42

Gl/184411976 and G1/l 84511976. The said subrnission is not

¶43

disputed by learned Govemment Pleader for Revenue.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no

¶45

order as to costs

¶46

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶47

in the writ petition stand closed.

¶48

/rrRUE^coPY//

¶49

SD/- T. JAYASREE AsslsrANr^R#zFAR

¶50

SECTIOIYOFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

2 i:eoE:uis:":"",:"iitjh5;,k?1il:::::,,:'::;"I3j-:]ffffi The S-oecial^{Officer ano t'c} I cnZ#rr"ic;mnrqx,.f 91nfl'J;rTJlfi 'r'.?"',hadMuniciparcorporation,Kapra

¶53

3 ine Deputv^{Commisstoner'} 4. 5. b illttttrjtf,--ffi^{'Hejrj*#!fi EH[${q#q."Fss#I::"}}

¶54

7 to"'JJ"^{to SRI tvl.DURGAPRASAD'sc FoR GHM. toPUCI} 8 Two CD^CoPies' BSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

CC TODAY

1
(
/+
.J
ir> 1E APtl ?i:I' f
j ,,,/
t
it -:'" ai:
-.--a-:. - -;-''

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.1082 of 2024

¶61

ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

\
Lr ?p
6

Smt.S.Sri Lakshmi v. Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.S.Sri Lakshmi v. Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jangili Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Gudu Saheb Vs State of Telangana

Mandadi Aghamaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Siddanthi Ram Prasad Vs State of Telangana

Sundara Murthy Shriramoju Vs the State of Telangana

Nadagouni Sheshamma Vs The State of Telangana