Disposed

Madasi Kurva Rachala Bheema Raju v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024WP/24569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his building permission application by the Marikal Gram Panchayat on the ground of a pending unrelated writ petition. The High Court set aside the rejection and directed the Panchayat to pass appropriate orders under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Rejection orders set aside; respondent No.3 directed to pass appropriate orders on the building permission application as per Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018; no costs.

Madasi Kurva Rachala Bheema Raju Vs The State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdlction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 24569 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Madasi Kurva Rachala Bheema^{Raju,s/o. Kurva Rachala Buchanna, Aged51} years, Occ. Business R/o H.No- 4-101, Marikal^{Village, Dhanwada Mandal,} Narayanpet District, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telengana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary. Pa;rchayat Raj} Department, Secretarlat, HyCerabad,^Telangana.

¶13

2- The District Panchayat Officer',^{NiarayanpetDistricl,Telangana.}

¶14

The Marikal Gram^{Panchayat,MarikalVillage' DhanwadaMandal,} Narayanpet District, Telanagana,^{Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, direction or order^{moreparticularlyone in the nature of a} Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the respondents in rejecting the online} Application No. 649, submitted^{by the petitioner seeking for BuildingPermission,} without asslgning any^{validreason,as beingillegal, arbitrary, contrary to the} provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018^{and violationof rights guaranteed to the} petitioner under Article 14,21 and 300-4 of^{the constitutionof lndia and} consequently direct^{the respondents to grant building permission to the petitioner} in respect of the land^{admeasuring 167.36 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 1lAA' Marikal} Village, Dhanwada Mandal,^{Narayanpet District}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto} permit the petitioner to commence construition^{in the land admeasuring167.36} bq.^yards in Sy.No. 1/AA,^{IvlarikalVrllage, Dhanwada lvlandal, Narayanpet District.}

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH SATYASADHAN

¶21

counsel for the Respondent Nos.'r&2: Gp FoR pANcHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 99yTel^{for the Respondent nO.3: SRt CHANDRA} SHEKHAR REDDy SC FOR PANCHAYATH

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SARATH

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.24569^{of 2024}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is^{tiled under Article 226 of} Constitution^{of India,seeking the followingrelief:}

¶27

"...to issue a LUit,^{direcLion or ordermoreparticular|y} one in the nature^{of a Wit of Mandamus declaing the action} of the respondents^{tn rejecting the online ApplicationNo'649} submitted bA^{tLrcpetitioner seeking} for^{Building Perrnission} uithout assigntng^{any ualid reason as being ilLega|arbitrary} and. mntrarg^{to the proulsionsof th.e PanchnyatRcti Act,} 2O18 and uiolation^{of ightsguaranleedto the petitioner} und-er Article^{14, 21 and 3O0A of the Constitutionof India} and consequentlA^{direct the respondentsto grontbutlding} pennission to the^{petitioner inrespect of theland} odmeasuing^{167.36 Sq Yards [nSA-No.] / AA,Marikal} " Viltage, Dhanutada^{MandaL, NaraaanpetDistict}

¶28

Heard Learned^{Counsel appearingfor the petitioner,} learned Government^{Pleader for PanchayatRaj appearing} for the respondent^{Nos. Iand 2and learned Standing} Counsel^{appea-ring for the respondent No'3With the} consent^{of the both sides, the writ petition is disposed of,} at the stage^{of admissionitself}

¶29

¶30

SK,J W.P.No.2a 569 of 202q

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the pe._itioner is the absolrrte owner and possessor of the iand admeasuring 167.36 Sq. yards in Sy.No.l/AA Marikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Narayalpet District and the same had purchased through sale deecl dated 10.O8.2009 and the same was registered as documentNo.2732/2OOg.

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioner that ezrrlier the petitioner along with vendor and another has fi1ed O.S.No.22 of 2Ol2 on the hle of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet seeking for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the Endowment Department alcl the same was decreed in A.S.No. t of 2023 on 3L.01.2024. 1'hereafter, the petitioner has filed. application for house construction permission for the same suit scheduled property ancl the sarne was rejected by the resoondent No.3-Gram Panchayat on the ground that the matter was pending before this Court in W.p.No.gZ79 of 2024. But, tlre W.P.No.8779 of 2024 is not pertaining to the suit schedule property and the same is nothing to do with the

¶33

¶34

SK,J W.P.No.24569 of 2024

¶35

application for^{house buitding permission.The}

¶36

respondent-authorities^{without verifying the Court orders} in W.P.No.8779 of^{2024 tejected the application hled by} the petitioner ald^{the same is illegal and contrary and the} said rejection orders^{of the respondent-authorities is liable} to be set aside.

¶37

In view of the above^{hndings, the Writ Petition is} disposed of by setting^{asidethe rejection orderspassed by} the respondent^{No.3-Gram Panchayat and directing the} respondent No.3-Gram^{Parchayatto pass appropriate} orders on the^{applicationhled by the petitioner and} communicate the^{same tothe petitioner as per the} Telangana Panchayat^{Raj Act, 2018. There sha-ll be no} order as to costs.

¶38

Miscelianeous petitions, if^{any, pending in the writ}

¶39

petition sha-ll stand^closed

¶40

wruArnv "''[s,BFift+HtGTITRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION Urr,"r*

¶41

To, 6 -^L^,,^r P.i nenartment,^{Secretariat' Hyderabad'} '-', . ,n" Principal Secretary' Panchayat^{Raj Departm'} Telangana 2 The^{District PanchaYatOfficer'NaraYanPet District' Telangana}

¶42

cD+e-

¶43

¶44

3 ThePanchavatSecretaryMarikalGramPanchayat,Marikal./illage, D'ni;;rJ;^{M;"oat, Nara-vanpetDistrict' Telanagana'}

¶45

One CC to^{SRl. CHSATYASADHAN AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶46

¶47

5 ONE CC^{tO SRICHANDRA SHEKHAR REDDY SC FOR PANCHAYATH} [oPUC]

¶48

o iwo ccs to cp^{FOR PANCHAYATRAJRURAL DEV,High(lourt for the} State of^Telangana. [OUT]

¶49

7 Two CD CoPies

t /

[, i t

HIGH COURT

\ DATED:05/09/2024

I
' .',-1. Sf\lr, I
r. i"'i07l
ls

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.24569 of 2024

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

d
A"J't
2A\ \o *

¶62

A"J't

Madasi Kurva Rachala Bheema Raju v. The State of Telengana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madasi Kurva Rachala Bheema Raju v. The State of Telengana

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.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Sri M Baga Reddy Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Peer Mohammad Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri Mahalakshmi Cotton Seed and Oil Industries Vs The State of Telangana

Kotha Guruvaiah Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

K.Bagaiah, Vs The State of Telangana