Disposed

Y Jagath Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/28320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 28320 of 2023 without adjudicating on the merits or costs. The Court directed the Gram Panchayat to reconsider the petitioner's building permission application after issuing notices and conducting a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent No.6 (Gram Panchayat) to consider the petitioner's application for building permission after issuing notices and conducting a personal hearing.

Y Jagath Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28320 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y JAGATH REDDY, S/o Late Y Sai Reddy, Aged about 50^years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Vemulnarva Village, Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy iII\ District' 5o94o'

¶9

..PETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF TELANGAT'IA, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Rai and Rural Development, T S Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Panchayath Raj, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR LOCAL BODIES, Ranga Reddy District^at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶13

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 5. THE MANDAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

THE GRAI\iIPANCHAYAT, Vemulnarva Village, Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by its Secretary

¶15

Y. JAYASIIIi,IHA REDDY, S/o. Y. Prathap Reddy, Aged about 56^{years, Occ.} Business, R/o. H.No. 1-15 and^'1-16, Vemulnarva Village Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 509408.

¶16

Y. AMARSITMHA REDDY, S/o Y. Prathap Reddy, Aged about 54^years,Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-15 and 1-16, Vemulnarva Village Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 509408.

¶17

RR 7 and 8 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 7 .11.2023 in lA No.^{2 ot 2O23.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th Respondent^{in rejecting the} building^permission application on 141912022 to construct the^{House in the} premises No 1-14 pursuant to the application dated 3010312022 submitted by the petitioner is against to the Section 1'14 of the Panchayath Raj Act and^{is null and} void abinitio. illegal and against to the^{Article 14,21and 300Aof the Constitution}

¶20

of lndia and consequently, allow the Writ petition directing the Respondents to approve the building construction permission in the Premises No 1-14 lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to construct the House in the premises H No 1-14, Vemulnarva Village, Keshamipet lrlandal, R R District as per the application and plan submitted by the petitioner on 301312022 since it is deemed approved under section 114(3) of the Panchayath Ra1 Act pending Writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1toS: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P. KISHORE RAO,

¶25

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7&8: SRI K. PRADEEp REDDy

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶29

W.P.No.2832O of 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The Writ Pctition is filed seeking the following

¶32

relief:

¶33

"to issue a Writ, Order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^action of the^6b Respondent in rejecting the building permission application on 14.9-2022 to construct the House in the^{premisesNo.1-14} puEuant to the application dated 30.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner is against to the Section 114 oF the Panchayath Raj Act and is null and void abinitio, illegal and against to the Article^{14, 21} and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently^{allow the} Writ^petition directrng the Respondents to approve the^building construction permission in the Premises No.1-14".

¶34

Heard Sri N. Purushotham Recldy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the I lespondent Nos. I lo 5, learnecl Slanding Counsel for the respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for thc respondent Nos.7 and B.

¶35

The petitioner tS questioning the rejection ol I application for building permission on i4.09.2022 on the ground.of pendency of W.P.No.16457 of 202 1 before this Court. Today, this Court disposed ol W.P.No.16457 ol 202t.

¶36

I t

¶37

¶38

SIi-J \.1'.No.28320 ol 2023

¶39

In view of disposal of W.P.No.l6457 of 2O2) toda:t i.e, 09.O9.2024, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed ol directing the respondent No.6-Gram Palchayat to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission dated 30.03.2022 after issuing notice to the petitioner as \vell as the ulrollicial respondents and a-fter affording opportunity of p,:rsonal hearing to both the parties and pass appropriate orlers as per the provisions of Telalgana Panchayal Raj Act, 2018 No order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications, if an_v pending in this

¶41

petition, shall stand closed ,I

¶42

sp=€e^R/ YA^I/. URT I SDI.^K Ass^{IS-IANT REGIS} l[RuE^coPYll secrr&t'orrrcen

I I

To,

) BM

¶47

HIGH COURT

¶48

DATED:0910912024

¶49

-\e aj'r^ ( o^
e.
,|
-) 2 7 iiti ilzl ;i
t 'jr,.::l,

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.28320 of 2023

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

Dh
bq"
{x
tP",ti
K<br>

Y Jagath Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y Jagath 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

R.Balreddy Vs The State of Telangana

C.S. Susheel Kumar, Vs Shri.Dr.Jithender,Ips

M/s. Janaki Trading Company Vs The State Of Telangana

Smt.Badavath Sarada, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Habeebunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Radarapu Sambareddy Vs The State of Telangana