Partly allowed

Smt. Shantam Padma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024WP/16445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the non-removal of an allegedly illegal Ganesh Pandal erected on her land. The High Court, noting that the respondent municipality had issued a show cause notice and received a reply which was pending consideration, held that the court could not decide the land dispute here. The matter was disposed of with a direction for the autho

What did the court decide?

Directs the respondent authority to consider the reply to the show cause notice and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

Smt. Shantam Padma Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SECOND^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINODKUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETI^{TION NO:16445OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.ShantamPadma,W/o.LateRamaSwamy,aged5^0years',Occ As;i;rii;A a"ori,^{Rvo. t-t.No.tg-++,} Pl'-gyu^{l1t'seiggl.o.ny'ShanthiNasar'} lrtinOimarri Village,^{Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary' Municipa.l} Administration and-Urban^{Dbvelbpment Dbpartment,Dr. B.R. Ambedkar} felangana State Secretariat,^{Khairtabad, Hyderabad'}

¶12

The filandamarri^{l\4unicipality,Rep. by its Commissioner, Mandamarri'} Mancherial District.

¶13

The Tahsildar,^{lvlandamarri Mandal, Mancherial District'}

¶14

The Sub-lnspector^{of Police, Mandamarri Police Station, MancherialDistrict.}

¶15

5.MekalaJamuna@BurneniJamunaW/oLateChinnaiah'aged-59years'Occ: - f-rOoui, nyo H.No-r-s?, Andugutapet, Mandamarri Village and Mandal' Mancherial District'

¶16

- Kasarla Shankar HL.fo.f e-)A, WarO^{S/o Posham, aged f.to.ZO. Covt. Ftospitai BhagyanagarColony, 50 ye-ars, Occ: SinggreniEmployee' MandamarriRl/o} Village and Mandal,^{Mancherial District'}

¶17

(RR5and6areimpleadedasperC.o.dated02.08.2024inl.A.No.2of 20241

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighcourtmaybe pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the respondentsNo'2 to 4 in not} removing the^{Ganesh Pendalfrom petitioner's ownland in SurveyNo' 130'} SituatedatBhagyanagarColony,shanthiNagar,MandamarriVillageandMandal,

¶20

Mancherial District which is erected illegally in pursuance of her Representation dated 24-08-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to remove the said Ganesh Pendal from petitioner's own land in Survey No.130, Situated at Bhagyanagar Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Mandamarri Village and Mandal, Mancherial District forthwith in^pursuance of her Representation dated 2410812023.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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.2 to 4 to remove the Ganesh Pendal from petitioner's own land in Survey No.1 30, Situated at Bhagyanagar Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Mandamarri Village and Mandal, Mancherial District forthwith in pursuance of her Representation daled 24-08-2O23 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 &6: SRI MALLESWARA RAO KALLU

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16445 OF 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1; Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3, Iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing lor rcspondent No.4, Sri Malleswara Rao Kallu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of impleaded respondents and perused the record.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner, in briet is to the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in removing the Ganesh Pandal from petitioner's own land in Sy. No.130, situated at Bhag,anagar colony, Shanthi Nagar, Mandamarri village and Mandal, Mancherial District by considering her representation dated 24.08.2023, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of tndia.

¶33

¶34

When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing today, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the authorities have issued a show cause notice dated 22.O7.2024 calling upon the impleaded respondent to show cause as to why the action should not be initiated for erecting the Pandal, without obtaining any valid permission or sanction from the respondent authorities.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the aforesaid show cause notice being issued, the unofficial respondent had filed its reply d,ated 27 .O7.2O24 and that the authorities would consider the aforesaid explanation / reply submitted by the unofficial respondent and take lurther action in the matter in accordance with law.

¶36

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner by claiming her land to be in Sy. No.13O is laying a claim to the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 130/ 1 and, as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶37

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent fgrther submits that he has hled an explanation to

¶38

l t

¶39

I \

¶40

the notice issued and the^{said explanation} 1S pend ing consideration.

¶41

Though the petitioner contends^{that the unauthorized and} illegal construction^{is ereitedin her land in Sy. No.130, without} obtaining any^{permissionor sanction from the respondent} authorities, the^{unoff-rcialrespondenton the other handclaims} that the subject^{erectionof Pandal has been madein their land} in Sy. No.13O/¹ and^{that the petitioner has no right to claim} over the subject^land.

¶42

I have taken note of^{the respective contentionsurged}

¶43

g . Whether the subject erection^{made by the unofficial} respondent is in Sy.^{No. 130/ Ias claimed by them or in Sy'} No.130 belonging to^{the petitioneris a subject matterwhichis} to be resolved by^{approaching the competent Court of civil} jurisdiction. However, in so far as^{the claim of the petitionerof} the said erection of^{Pandal by the unofficia'l respondent is} without obtaining^{any valid permissionor sanctionfrom the 2"d} respondent authority^{is concerned, the 2nd respondentauthority} having stated before this^{Court that the said erectionof Pandal} is not obtaining any^{valid permission or sanction from the} concerned authority^{and the authority having initiated actionby}

issuing notice dated 22.02.2024 to which the unoflicial respondent having filed an explanation d,ated 27.OT.2024, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent authority being in receipt of the explanation/ repry to the show cause notice is required to take further action by considering the explanation of the unoflicial respondent and passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

¶48

Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶50

SD/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t, !'r SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

1 The Princioal secretary,^{Municipal Administrationand Urban Development} ' o"iirtr"fit or- a.n. Ambedkai Telangana State Secretariat, Khairtabad, Stdte of Telangana,^HYderabad'

¶53

The Commissioner,^{Mandamarri Municipality,Mandamarri, Mancherial} District.

¶54

The Tahsildar,^{Mandamarri Mandal, Mancherial District'}

¶55

The sub-lnspector^{of Police, Mandamarri Police Station, [t/lancherial District.}

¶56

One CC to SRI^{RUDRESH DESHPANDEAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶57

Two CCs to GP^{FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV ,High Court for the} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶58

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]}

¶59

B. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana} [OUT]

¶60

One CC to SRI MALLESWARA^{RAO KALLU,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶61

Tlvo CD Copi:s 33tO^{ota c-Lto ael B''SaffvD luAl"o- tut lbn l-t'|iniiP"\t"^,}

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210812024

ORDER

WP.No.16445^{of 2024}

¶67

fl 1 H E t4
q
oo 1{ 0Br m
t
rtl ,

¶68

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS @p4tu A

Smt. Shantam Padma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shantam Padma 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

Annamma Koshy, Vs The State of Telangana

Ankatala Ravinder Goud Vs The State of Telangana

A.K. Ramesh, Secbad Vs Commissioner, Ghmc, Hyd and 4 Ot

Adapala Sandeep Vs Chevula Janga Reddy

Roop Karan Sanghi, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung Vs The State of Telangana