Disposed

Banoth Sali v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024WP/32952/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Leave Petition sought a Writ of Mandamus against the State of Telangana and others for failing to dispose of a pending C.M.A. against an LTR eviction order and arbitrary house dismantling. The High Court disposed of the petition and directed the 6th Respondent to decide the C.M.A. on merits within three months following principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 6th Respondent to decide the pending C.M.A. against the eviction order within three months after serving notices to all concerned parties.

Banoth Sali Vs The State of Telangana represented by… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t32s21

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32952 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Banoth !qli, lflo^{BheekyaaliasAchaiah,Age 75 years, Occ Nit, Rl/o} Q.No.tull G-ll-47, HB Colony, Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶9

2 Banoth Jangal, S/o Bheekya alias Achaiah Age 54 years, Occ Employee, Rl/o Q-No.N/lG-ll-47, HB Colony, Chunchupalli Vlllage,' Kothagudem,'Kh'ammam District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of T_elangana represented by its Principal, Secretary (Tribal Welfare Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶14

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District

¶16

5 The Mandal Revenue lnspector ll, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. o The Addl. Agent to Government (Project Officer), lntegrated Tribel Development Agency, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Districf.

¶17

7 Guguloth Ralesh Naik, District President, Lambadi Hakkula porata Samithi, Seethampet Banjara, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

8 Kodumuri Srinivas Rao, Veeraiah, Rl/o Ganesh Basti, Kothagudem Town, Khammam District.

¶19

Koneru Nageswara Rao, Narasimha Rao, Fi,/o N.K.Nagar, Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus in the interest of justice declaring the action of the Respondent No.6

¶22

in not taking up the un numbered cMA filed against the order dated 25-06-20i6 in LTR Case No.9/20'16/Kgm passed by the Respondent No.2 herein and the consequential Panchanama dated 30-07-20'16 of the Respondent No.5 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequenfly in the interest of justice set-a-side the order dated 25-06-20.16 in LTR Case No.9i2016/Kgm passed by the Respondent No.2 herein.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 40761 0F 20161

¶24

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 suspend the order dated 25-06-2016 in LTR Case No.g/20.16/Kgm passed by the Respondent No.2 herein and the consequential panchanama dated 30-07-2016 of the Respondent No.5 till pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENTVASA RAO RAVULAPATI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: AGp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE MRS^{JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶29

RIT ET N .32 2 201

¶30

OR DER:

¶31

Heard Sri Ravulapati^{Sreenivasa Rao, learned} counsel appearing^{on behalf of petitioners and learned} Assistant^{GovernmentPleader forSocial Welfare} appearing^{on behalf of respondents'}

¶32

2 The petitioners^{approachedthe Court seekingthe} prayer as follows:

¶33

".. ....to issue a^{writ ordirection more} particularly one in^{the nature of Writ of Mandamus} in the interest^{of justicedeclaringthe action of the} Respondent^{No.6 innot taking up the un} numbered CMA^{filed against the order dated25-} 06-2016^{in LTR Case No.9/2016/Kgm passed by} the Respondent^{No.2 hereinand the consequential} Panchanama^{dated30-07-20t6of the Respondent} No.5 as^{illegal, arbitraryand againstthe principles} of natural^{justice and consequently set aside the} No. order dated^{25-06-2016 inLTR Case} 9l2Ol6/Kgm^{passed by the Respondent} No2 herein in the^{interest of justice'"'}

¶34

¶35

SN, J wP 32952 2016

¶36

The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners purchased plots admeasuring 5 guntas 22 Sq. yards, covering Sy.Nos. L49/2, 149/3, situated at Housing Board Colony, Chunchupalli Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. Further the Respondent No.9 promised to get the plots registered in favour of the petitioners but failed to perform his duty. Subsequently, the Respondent No.2 had initiated LTR proceedings in Case No.9/20L6/Kgm, in respect oF the plots belonging to the petitioners, upon a petition submitted by the 7th respondent before the 2nd respondent herein and the respondent No.2 vide order dated 25.06.2016 directed ejectment of the occupants of the subject land to an extent of 2 Acres 20 guntas located in sy.No. L49/2 and 14913 located at Chunchupalli Village and aggrieved by the same petitioners herein had filed C.M.A. before the 6th respondent herein in august, 2016 and the same is pending as on date.

¶37

It is further the specific case of the petitioners that though the petitioners herein have preferred the said C.M.A. against the order dated 25.06.2016 in LTR Case No.9/2016/Kgm passed by the respondent No.2 herein and

¶38

SN. I wP 129i2 2016

¶39

¶40

the consequential^{Panchanamadated30 '07 '2016 of the} respondent^{No.5 beforethe 6th respondent way back in the} year 2016, the^{respondentNo'6 had not initiated any action} for disposal^{of the same as on date' The respondentNo'4} arbitrarily^{dismantled the constructed house withoutfollowing} the^{provisions of Act, as directedby the respondent No'2 in} thesaidLTRcase'Aggrievedbythesame,thepresentWrit petition is filed.

¶41

The^{learned AssistantGovernment Pleaderfor} Social^{Welfare appearing on behalfofresPondents} be disPosed^of submits that^{the writ petitioncould} directing^{the 6th respondent to take up and disposeof} on merits^{theunnumbered C'M'A' filed bythe} petitioners in^{the month of August 2015 againstthe} order dated^{25.06'2016in LTR caseNo.9/2O16lKgm} herein and^the passed bY the^{resPondentNo'2} 30.07.2016^{of the} consequential^{Panchanama dated} law, within^a respondent^{No.5 inaccordance to} reasonable^{period by giving notices to} all concerned. of learned^{Asst' Government} The said^submission

I I I

SN, J wP 12952 20r6

Pleader for Socia! Welfare is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶46

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. and the submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Social Welfare, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 6th respondent to take up and dispose of on merits the unnumbered C.M.A, preferred by the petitioners in the month of August 2016 against the order dated 25.06.2016 passed in LTR Case No. 9/2OL6/Kgm by the respondent No.2 and the consequential panchanama dated 3O.O7.2O16 of the respondent No.5, in accordance to law, in conform.ity with principtes of natural justice by giving notices to all concerned including the respondent Nos. 7 to g herein within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shal! be no order as to costs.

¶47

¶48

SN, J wP 32952 2016

¶49

The miscellaneous^{applications,ifany' shall stand}

¶50

closed.

¶51

I'TRUE^COPYI/

¶52

RAO SD/.S.^MALLIKARJU ASSIST^ANTRE STRAR

¶53

SECTION^OFFICER

¶54

(rribar^{werfare Department)'secretariat'Hvderabad'}

¶55

To, , IiiJ:'if33l3:::*'o

¶56

2.^{The Agency Divisional Officer' Kothagudem' Khammam District'}

¶57

3.^{The Revenu"OiuisionafOtticer'XotfraguOem'Khammam District'}

¶58

4.^{The Tahsildar' Kothagudem Mandal' Khammam DistrictTahsildar' Kothagudem Mandal' Khammam DistrictKothagudem Mandal' Khammam District} Kothasudem

¶59

^{The Tahsildar' Kothagudem Mandal' Khammam DistrictTahsildar' Kothagudem Mandal' Khammam DistrictKothagudem Mandal' Khammam District} Kothasudem^{Mfi:[t''':ff:t:o'"i::t"'}

¶60

s.^{rheMand ar Revenue';;;:;";} ',

¶61

;i:t-r.""4%?$"Ji'"'?3'lT'1ff'llr<ll"'iri'"''*8i;ui"t

¶62

*u"o'Arl^{Advocate toPucl} Hish^{court for the Stateof}

¶63

7.^{one cc to SRI} '*'J;;;;*oo

¶64

. +:8"3t;::ffr"l"?$,lo++t;'**'

9.^{Two CD CoPies}

BIF',.-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2111112024

ORDER

\r.t-
(
Joo 2 B i:ti ?[?5 ((Ii
r) .SI.,A I t-lt-'rl

¶72

WP.No.32952 of 2016

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

\acoP(oa Kh 6t{r

Banoth Sali v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banoth Sali v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

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

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations)

Rana Manpower and Placement Services (P) Ltd., Vs Apsrtc

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apcpdcl

M/s. Sai Parenterals Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Arshad Vs The State of Telangana