Disposed

Sri Ragatee Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Aug 2024WP/22463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged a proposal for road widening and demolition affecting her disputed property, alleging ownership based on a gift deed. The petitioner her representations submitted showing road exceeding 100 feet but claiming right clearly granted powers to consider the representations direct notice to the father opportunity-led to dispose without n

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to consider representations, notice father, afford opportunity.

Sri Ragatee Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE I AT HYDE3JfJiDOF^TELANGANA

¶3

(Speciat Original .turisiiction;

¶4

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAN D AND rWErrriV' r6iIE''"'''

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO :32100 oF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

#;ip#j:rffi i,Bj*'*tr#,hffiJ,in"reTfut3?:r,.n'{1T:5sl

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Munic

¶13

secretary, dec%6,ili:11;:j3?jf',T'f::Xfi;,:ll?*,rtment, rep by its^principar

¶14

2 il':?.",:fi i:lT[""1r:9ffi,s,f, L?"t's,:,ff^{ionorrhonu,rhorrur}

¶15

2 il:?lsffi :l?TBg,3J:"f:,#nicipar^{corporationor rhorru,} rhorrur Mandar,

¶16

4 The District Collector, Mahaboobabad District, Mahaboobabad.

¶17

4 HS:: T.:XitX'LTXirli,E$1i"i";Eep^{resen redb} v^{ts Di rector,} M i n i s rry or

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

. Petition under Article 226--of the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the.affidavit fif"J it"iur,tt, the High_Court may be pleased to issue a writ or orou. oibi,u"iio"" pr"nl"r,rrry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directino the 2nd-;.ril;;i llt"io int .r"r" with the petitioners building property bearing Ng 19- z-i-".^irti.g i, our. rrsq. feet on the tand consrstrng of 67. 16.o yI9.; Thorrur V,iif"g; Ird Mandat, Thorrur Municipatity, Mahaboobabad District without rotrowing t;eLJ'iro..., of law, and decrare the said action as i,esat arb.itrary, ;il;;;;";;,"'rn,r.t and unfair, untawfut, unconstitutionat and aoainst re princrpies' Jil,lirrrr.ir"tic". roi ioai ;;;;,rg, and direct rhe 3'r resiono"nt to'trrJi"r"Jr#inr. of width oitn""ior! ov restoring the median divider to """br;i'i#triiol"r Hignry 63and pass such case and other order in the or orders interest as of deql justice.iii "ra pr"p"i li'lL" ,, the circumstances of the

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under section.l:1 cpg praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitio'n, *,""uigh c.rrt may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent the petitioners buirding p.p"iv bearing r.ro rb--is,-"on!.tins of 467' 23 sq feet on the rand.consisting oiozl ro sq "yaras ,olr.#'i" ,. National Highway, Thorrur Village Ind Mandal, ThorrJr frrf rni"ipafii,] Mahaboobabad District and pass suc[ otner oro"r't. oro"r. as this Hon,ble court jT|,Y":""' fit and proper in the circumstinces of ih" "u." ,.a i, tn. ir-t"".i oi

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. B KRISHNA REDDY

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR McpL ADMN URBAN DEV C-ounsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI M. RAM MOHAN REDDY SC FOR MC

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent NO.S: SRI M. RAMU SC FOR NHAI

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLB SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.32100 0F 2024

¶29

ORAL ORI) ER:

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and leamed Assistant Govemment pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶31

The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of commercial building door bearing No.l5_75, admeasuring 67.16 square yards consists ofground and first floor with built up area of 467.23 square feet each, situated at Thomrr Village and Mandal, Mahaboobabad District on the strength of a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.37l5 of ZOl2, dated, 11.05.2012. There is proposal for road widening. According to her, there is already 100 feet existing road and, therefore, the proposal for widening the road by 50 feet on either side from the centre of existing divider is unjustified. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation dated 09, 10.2024 to respondent No.2 and representation dated, 26.10.2024 to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana State, dated 26.10.2024 and another

t 3

representation dated I 1.11.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 4 with a request to withdraw proposed road widening and demolition in front of his commercial house as existing road width is already 100 feet Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent No.2 did not act upon thc same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present urit petition.

¶36

Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 will consider the said representations dated 09.10.2024 and I I . 1 I .2024 and take steps in accordance with law

¶37

In the light of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 09.10.2024 and 11.11.2024 and take steps in accordance with law after putting father of the petitioner on notice and affording him an opportunity. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶39

this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶40

sD/-T. TTRUMALA DEV| ASSTSTANT REVi{RAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

1 The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Municipal Admirristration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶43

2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Thorru, Thorrur fula ndal, Mahaboobabad District, Te14ngana.

¶44

3 ]he^{TowlPlanning Officer, Municipal Corporation of Thorru, 'fhorrur Mandal,} Mahaboobabad District, Telangana.

¶45

¶46

The District Collector, tt/ahaboobabad Diskict, Mahaboobabad.

¶47

Director, National Highway Authoritids of lndia, Ministry gf Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi-

¶48

One CC to SRl. B KRISHNA REDDY Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRI M. RAtvl MOHAN REDDY SC FOR MC IOPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRI M. RAMU SC FOR NHAI [OPUC]

¶51

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

¶52

'10.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies

KKS

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112024

\ \

ORDER

=='_
i T.6. i
o +
r
t)oJ ?.1 t'lI\j ?0?l
i)
* 4'
L-.-.,'l - a,.l t.
-:.a2

¶64

WP.No.32100 of 2024

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

u \P

Sri Ragatee Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ragatee Venkat 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

Penmetsa Sundara Rama Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri Akkiraju Seshagiri Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Atluri Sathyavathi Vs State of Telangana

Gunde Kalamma W/o G.Bikshapathi, Vs The State of Telangana

Badisa Narasaiah Vs Forest Range Officer

G.Rajendranath Goud, S/o Late Sri G.Jagannath Goud Vs The State of Telangana