Disposed

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Sept 2024WP/17866/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Gram Panchayat's inaction regarding alleged illegal construction on disputed land by the respondent without permission. The Court directed the Panchayat Officer to examine the petitioner's representation and pass orders strictly in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Panchayat Officer to examine the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2024, hear parties, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I I

¶2

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17866 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, Age. 58 yers, Occ. Agriculture, R/oH.no.9-35, Muthyalayammapeta, Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hydera bad.

¶13

The District Collector, (Panchayat Raj wing), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

The District Panchayat Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶15

The Gram Panchayat, Sarapka, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Rep by its Panchayat Secretary.

¶16

Gopireddy Venkateshwara Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, Age. 65 yers, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Muthyalayammapeta, Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the arbitrary action of the 4th respondent/Gram Panchayat in not taking action against 5th respondent's illegal construction of building, without obtaining gram^panchayat construction^permission, constructing the building in the land situated in Sy.No.262 to an extent^{of Ac.0-10} cents of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, within the boundaries of East. House of Narina Dilip Rao and sons, West. Gram

¶19

Panchayat Road, North. vacant land of lnnaiah and South. Gram panchayat Road, inpite of the petitioner's representation dt.15.06.2024 which was received by the 4th respondent on 18 06 2024 is illegal, void and opposed to articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia, including the provisions of TS Gram panchayat Act 2018, and consequently, to direct the 4th respondent to demolish the Sth respondent's illegal construction in Sy.No.262 to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, within the boundaries of East. House of Narina Dilip Rao and sons, West. Gram Panchayat Road, North. vacant land of lnnaiah and South. Gram^panchayat Road.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 4h respondent to take immediate steps to stop further illegal construction going to be made by the 5th respondent in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.262 to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, within the boundaries of East. House of Narina Dilip Rao and sons, West. Gram Panchayat Road, North. vacant land of lnnaiah and South. Gram Panchayat Road, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.KISHORE RAO,

¶25

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI P.V. RAMANA

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17866 of 2O24

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of respondent No.4 in not taking action against respondent No.S, who made the illegal constructions without obtaining permission in the land admeasuring Ac.O. 10 cents in Sy.No.262 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and not considering representation, dated 15.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, prayed to direct respondent No.4 to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent No.S and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the owner of agriculture land to an extent of Ac.10.O0 and two house plots admeasuring Ac.0.2O cents each situated in Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.S, without obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned authorities, made illegal constructions and part of the petitioner's land has been encroached. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J \ Wp 17866 2024

¶34

submitted a detailed representation, dated 15.06.2024 before respondent No.4 rcquesting to take necessary action for removal of illegal constructions made by respondent No.S. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said representation, respondent No.4 has not taken any action against respondent No.5.

¶35

Respondent No.S filed counter inter alia stating that there is a title dispute with regard to the land situated rn Sy.No.2Z /Z and the petitioner instead of taking recourse to resolve the dispute by approaching the competent civil Court has made false allegations against respondent No.5 and the constructions made by respondent No.5 are not illegal constructions and the Gram Panchayat may regularize the said constructions ll-t accordance with the Rules in force.

¶36

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion whether the constructions being carried on by respondent No.S are regularisable under the various schemes and government orders issued by the Government from time to time, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.4 to examine the representation, dated 15.06.2024 submitted by the petilioner and after hearing the

¶37

CVBR, J wp 17866 2024

¶38

¶39

petitioner as well as respondent No.s^pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within a^period of^three(03) months from the date o[ receipt of a copy of this^{order and} communicate the decision thereon to them.

¶40

With the above observations, the writ^{petition is disposed}

¶41

of. No costs.

¶42

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,} shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

SD/.P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REgISTRAR //rRUE coPY// | Y{t-:: -- SECTION OFFICER I

¶45

To, l.ThePrincipatsecretary,PanchayatRajDepartment'secretariat'TheStateof Telanoana. Hvderabad.

¶46

2 il;Dil.il C6rr""toiiprnchavat^{Raj wing), Kothagudem' Bhadradri}

¶47

Kothaqudem District.

¶48

3 ?x;'DY.fi ;i'il"iiirv"t^{off icer. Kothagudem Bhadrad ri Kothasudem District} + f6e Fincf,avat Secietary^{1ne Grarn"Panchayat.Sarapka, Burgampahad} Mandal, Bhadradri^{Kothaqudem District'}

¶49

5 il;ai to^{Sri Mrm.andni Srinivasa Rao,Advocate} t9f-q9-].

¶50

O;; CC io Sti^{P. Kishore Rao, SC for Gram Panchayat[OPUC]}

¶51

On" CC to Sri^{P.V. Ramana' Advocate[OPUC]} il. i; cct to op^{tor eanJnayaiCa1Rural Dev6lopment' High Court for the} State of Telangana.^{at Hydeiabad} [OUT]

¶52

Two CD CoPies

TJ LS

t i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410912024

ORDER

WP.No.17866 of 2024

?
1r.E
(_:.
I 9<br>2 U fiOI nu :ll
all
t/t. ll

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

n <br>

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy 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

Smt.a.Manohara Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Muneerunnisa Begum Vs A.P. Housing Board

Nunavath Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Sri Lakshmi Service Station, Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and 2 Others

B. Ramulu Vs the State of Telegana

Handum Industries Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Vs The Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Foreign