Disposed

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/15969/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged municipal notices dated 30.01.2010 concerning their property. Following a Division Bench common order in connected writ petitions, this writ petition was disposed of in similar terms and the impugned notices were quashed, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Division Bench order; impugned notices dated 30.01.2010 quashed; liberty to authorities to act in accordance with law; no costs.

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers Vs The Government… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

H'lG H cou R r

:iilifl#flJi{: ;..:^' "^,^

¶6

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶7

-T,?3';,1ffi .XilElT#lilEALoI#^",

¶8

BRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶10

Between:

¶11

WRtr PETITION NO:1 5969 oF2010

¶12

¶13

2 slvapet, ftffi^{**tilii*f jq."+fr} EffiI,#i.t,?tu'r,rl}'.i'": 2-7-31,

¶14

AND ...PETIT!oNERS

¶15

;tr,f,iriji*,1'#EiHft ,di{Fj"u:+,t[;:tiI1.,.,"",",

¶16

rer, Sadasivapet, Medak District

¶17

Petition under Artic,F e)c 226 or^c tt the consrituti "RESPONDENTS ci.cumsr,nc"" :;;;;,1,t"" of lndia praying that in the the affidavit pleased to issue a writ, ''"0 'n"t"on writ or manda r r" 0.",-111"' o' oi,"u"tion-;* ;lHrlh ::tJ,r";TrI:: :; proceedinss ,, *o"*j:,%Trrl1::2,*rj::.:1 respondent ,, ,..,rn ,n" atbitrary, unconstitutiona, ; ;;;.: :',"1^{. "it"o 30.01.2010 as beinsinesat,} the proceedings in Roc.l violative of principles of natural justic. ano I.t ,.ioe ffi^{j$:+rffi::1"'"':"'"'J"'::f 'l^:':::":::r';:u';x,:ix} sadasivpet, Medak District.the subjectproperty situated at H'No. 2-7-31, NH No.9,

¶18

t.A. NO: :l oF 20 10 MP. NO:2O 10F 20 10

¶19

Petition under section 151 crc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the notice of the 3rd respondent made in proceedings in

¶20

30.01 .2010,^{pendingthe disPosal of the writ} ROC.No.G1/67/2010-(23)^dated petition

¶21

counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRI P'VENKATtoo-"roa} ADMN^{AND URBAN} ;il;i iI.^{i'r''" n"'pondent No'1:} B?$t MuNcr Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:GP FOR R-EYF.TUE} counsel^{for the Respo"olti'r'i"'i]ilL'snatlftil-NEELAM'sc FoR}

¶22

MC,TELANGANA

¶23

The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶24

"--:- ,-.-7 r

¶25

TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KT]MAR

¶26

WRITPETITIONN0.15969 of2010

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

¶29

This matter is listed under the caption "Specially Identified Cases (Infructuous)" to inform as to whether the cause in the Writ Petition survives for adjudication or not.

¶30

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the /ls involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 06-ll-2023 passed ln W.P.No.3249 of 2010 and batch.

¶31

Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioners herein are similarly placed as the petitioners in the above said Writ Petitions, the same order also be passed in the present Writ Petition.

¶32

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, and for the reasons alike as stated in the order dxed 06-ll-2023 in W.P.No.3249 of 2010 and batch, the present Writ Petition is

¶33

disposed of in terms thereof. No costs.

¶34

¶35

5 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall

¶36

stand closed. No costs.

¶37

SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcrr$Z#rcen

<br>

Thb Principal Secretary, tvlunicipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana.

¶43

The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy.

¶44

The Commissioner, Municipal Council Sadasivapet, Medak District

¶45

One CC to SRI P.VENKAT REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s SHANTHI NEELAM, SC FOR MC,TELANGANA [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies

¶49

. (Along with a copy of the order dt:06-11-2023 in WP.No.3249 of 2010 and batch)

PSK.

KKS Y4-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

ORDER

WP.No.15969 of²⁰¹⁰

1 i riilr .'''

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

\2-^ca{"/t ft-

I I I

THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶62

AND

¶63

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

¶64

WRIT PETITION Nos.3249.4021 4()30 4037.4207 4259 4275 4244 4725 4726 4803 4858 5.236 16469 16470 16497 16655 15659 16660 16668 16437 t6a7s 16891 L6997 17015 1,70L6 17065 t70ao. LTLL3, 17136, L7314, L7554, 1_763O and 17720 of 2OLo

¶65

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice AIok Aradhe)

¶66

Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Ms. A.padma, Mr. P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, Mr. p. Venkat Reddy and Mr. Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶67

Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government pleader for Revenue and Mr. B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for the ollicial respondents.

¶68

In view of the order passed by us today in W.P.No.15035 of 2009, the impugned notices dated 30.01.2010 are quashed. However, it is open for the authorities to take action against the petitioners in

accordance with law. Liberty^{is reservedto the petitioners} to take recourse to such^{remedy as may be availableto} them in law, in case the^{petitioners are aggrieved by any} order which may be^{passed by the Collector}

¶74

J With the aforesaid liberty,^{Writ Petitions stand} disposed of.

¶75

Miscellaneous applications^{pending, ifany, shall} stand closed. However,^{there shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶76

ALOK ARADHE,^GJ

¶77

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

¶78

Date:06.1t.2O23 KL/rnyk

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The state.of Telangana

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The State of Telangana

Lailaunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Mahmood Builders Pvt. Limited, Vs the State of Telangana

Giri Raj Jain Vs The State of Telangana

Marwadi Hindi Vidyalaya , Vs The State of Telangana