Disposed

Mohammed Faqruddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Oct 2024WP/21478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging the municipality's inaction against an illegal encroachment was disposed of. The Court directed the respondent municipality to consider the petitioner's representation and take action pursuant to a show cause notice already issued, after affording notice and opportunity to the petitioner and the encroacher within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider representation and take action against Respondent No. 3 within 4 weeks, after affording notice and opportunity.

Mohammed Faqruddin Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21478 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Faqruddin, S/o. Shaik Nazeer, aged 38 years, Occ. Business R/o. H. No. 11-21-638, NTR Nagar [r,4ain Road, Saroornagar, Hyderabad,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary the department of Ir.4A and UD. secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner, Pedda Amberpet I/unicipality, Ranga Reddy District, T. J-

¶13

3 Amrutha, W/o. Not known to petitioner Aged about 44 years Occ. househoid R/o. H. No. H. No. 10-173, Jay Prakash Nagar Colony, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet IVandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the in actions of the respondents for demolishing the illegal structure raised by 3rd respondent without permission and by encroaching upon the existing road causing in convenience and losses to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, null and void, against the statute, abuse of powers and dereliction of duties conferred under the law and in violation of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity and consequently declare all documents of encroachers and land grabbers created in coltusion with respondents as illegal null and void in the interest of justice

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to demolish the illegal structure raised by 3rd respondent by illegally encroaching upon road from alleged Bhudan Board Property to the petitioner's venture till the disposal of the writ petition in the interest of lustice and equity

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED RAHAIL AHMED

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SRI CH. JAGANNATHA RAO SC Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: --

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.2L478 of 2O24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urbal Development appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing lor respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3.Perused the record.

¶25

In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed ol at the admission stage dispensing u,ith notice to respondent No.3.

¶26

The petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor ol plot No.66, admeasuring 142 Sq.yds 1n Sy.Nos.8O, 81 and 82 situated at Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Manda-l, Ranga Reddy District, on

¶27

-_)

¶28

f.L.J W P.No.2lf78 of 202:r

¶29

¶30

the strength of an agreement of sale-cum-Ge.nera-1 Po."l,er of Attorney u'ith possession bearing document No.1428 of 2023 dated O9.O3.2O23. Respondent No,3 is making construction illegaily by encroaching upon th.e road from Bhudan Board property to the petitioner's venture. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 27-02.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to take action against respondent No.3. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said written representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶31

Sri Ch. Jagalnatha Rao, learned Standring Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, ,"vould submit that on receipt oi the said representation dated 27.02.2024, respondent No.2 has already issued shou, cause notice dated 25.07.2024 under Section 178 ol the seven Telarrgana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 by granting days time to respondent No.3. According to him,

¶32

I(L,J ! P No 2lr7a of2024

¶33

respondent No.3^{did not submit arry explanation'} Therefore, respond.ent^{No.2 will proceed further and take} action against resPondent^No.3.

¶34

In the light of^{the said submissions,this Writ} Petition is disposed^{of directing respondentNo'2to} consider the^{representation dated 27 'O2'2O24 and take} action in accordance^{with law pursuant to the show} cause notice dated^{25.07 .2024 by puttingthe petitioner} and respondent^{No.3 on noticeand aflordingthem an} opportunity. He^{shatl complete the said exercise 'uvithin a} period of four^{(4) weeks from the date o[ receipt ol a copy} of this order. There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending}

¶36

in the Writ Petition^{shall stand closed'}

¶37

SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTAN REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

The Principal secretary the^{department of IVIAand UD, secretariat Buildings} Hyderabad.

¶40

2.TheCommissioner,PeddaAmberpetMunicipal'ty,RangaReddyDistrict'T' S.

¶41

One CC to SRl.^{MOHATMMEDRAHAIL AHI\IED Advocate[OPUC]}

¶42

One CC to SRI CH. JAGANNATHA^{RAO SC FOR MC [OPUC]}

¶43

Two CCs to GP FOR^{|,'ICPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,HighCourt for the Stateof} Telangana. [OUT]

¶44

Vp-

¶45

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012024

ORDER

sTAre
.JY-
2[2[
1B [tt al'
i
i
PEsPA-r

¶50

WP.No.21478 of 2024

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (q)l -t' )^,Lr c1(4]2

Mohammed Faqruddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Faqruddin 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

Sajid Hussain Vs The Commissioner

Dalit Sankshema Sangam (Regd.) Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

G.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Antharam Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Mekka Madina Trust for Education and another Vs Union of India ans 2 Others

Mohammed Mustafa Khan Vs The State of Telangana