Disposed

A. Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2024WP/20862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition regarding an obstruction of a lane by a gate erected by a neighbor, the High Court dismissed the petition without costs, directing the Assistant City Planner to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it in accordance with law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without costs; direction to 3rd respondent to consider representation and dispose within 4 weeks.

A. Venkatesh Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:20862 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Venkatesh, Sio Late Krishna, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o H.No.2-3-703l1iJ and 1, Tirumala Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle-16, Amberpet Circle, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Assistant City Planner, Circle-16, Amberpet, GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶14

A. Ramaswamy, S/o Late A.Yenkaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ- nil Rl/o H.No.2-3-70311/K, Tirumala Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the inaction of the respondents¹ to 3ⁱⁿ not taking action against the 4th respondent, basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.07.2020 and even after issuing the Notice under Section 452 of HMCA Act, as arbitrary, illegal, and unlawful and consequentially direct the respondents, to take action by the respondents 2 to 3, against the 4th respondent, for removal of the illegally erected gate and opening into the 10 feet lane at H.No.2-3-703l1/K, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

lA NO:^'l OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents for removal of the obstructions being caused by the 4th

¶19

respondent into the 10 feet lane at H.No.2-3-703l1/K, Amberpet, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶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 permit the petitioner, to file additional affidavit in the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I(LAKSHMAN

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.20862 OF 2021

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri G.Vasantharayudu, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Govt.Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.l and Sri P.Surya Narayana Murthy, leamed counsel appearing for 4'h respondent.

¶28

The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the Houses bearing H.No.2-3-703l1/J AND 2-3703llllll situated at Tirumalanagar, Amberpet (Circle-16). Both the houses are having l0feet approach way from 3Ofeet road as these houses are inside and there is no other approach to both these houses. One of his neighbours by name A.Ramaswamy/4th respondent started harassing him. Though property of 4th respondent is facing approximately 3Ofeet to 30 feet main road, he has installed an additional gate opening to the petitioner's pathway without his consent and thereby harassing the petitioner. When the said gate is opened, it blocks half of the way. The 4th respondent and his tenants commute through petitioner's pathway and started to park their vehicles blocking the way and creating nuisance

¶29

¶30

¶31

by dictating terms. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 24.07.2020 with 3'd respondent with a request to take action against 4ft respondent. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 1.9.07.2021 requesting 2nd respondent to close the gate in dispute. The respondents did not take any action against the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has hled the present writ petition.

¶32

Respondent Nos.l to 3 filed counter contending that on receipt of the said representation, dated 24.07.2020, show cause notice dated 02.09.2020 was issued to 4th respondent and he has submitted explanation dated 01 .09.2020 stating that he is in possession of the house since 1987 after obtaining building permission vide permit No. 178122, dated 03.02. 1987 and since then the gate is existing. The respondent corporation did not initiate any further action as the gate is not constructed newly but existing since 1987. However, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that the 3d respondent will consider the representation dated 24.07.2020 and dispose it off in accordance with law.

¶33

4, In the light of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing 3'd respondent to consider the representation dated 24.07.2020 submitted by the petitioner and dispose it of in accordance

r'i

with law by putting the petitioner and 4m respondent on notice and

¶38

affording them an opportunity and communicate a copy of the said order to them. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4)

¶39

weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.

¶40

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD.K.SREERAMA MURTHY

¶42

//TRUE COPYI/

¶43

ASSiSTANtREGISTR^AR / /

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

¶46

Principal Secretary,^{IVlunicipal Administration Department, Secretariat,} Hvderabad. State of Telanoana.

¶47

2 i6e Oeputv Commissionerl Greater^{HyderabadMunicipalCorporation, Circle-} 16, Amberpet Circle, Hyderabad.

¶48

3 Thb Assist'ant City Planner,^{Circle-1 6, Amberpet,GHM-C,.Hyderabad'}

¶49

4 One CC to SRI G.VASANTHA^{RAYUDU,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

5 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL^{ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State} of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶51

6 on" cd"to sRt KAtIKA RAVINDER^{REDDY, sc FoRGHMC} [oP!-lc] 7 One CC to SRI P.SURYA^{NARAYANAMURTHY,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

PSK.

¶54

LS s

HIGH COURT

DATED:28111t2024

ORDER

WP.No.20862 of 2O21

11 E S T4 14:
.4.
$
{ 0 B JAt{ 2025 oz
t- ).
4.r
D€s r,,r-. a

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

(9^&r',) W

A. Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Ghouni Mohan, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Payal Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Noorunnisa Begum, Hyderabad and 3 Others Vs the Ghmc., Rep.by Its Commissioner,Hyderabad and 5 Otehrs

Srinivas Akula Vs The State Of Telangana

Kanithi Bhagyalaxmi Vs The State Of Telangana