Disposed

Pandavula Umesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2024WP/5260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter, the petitioner challenged the taking of action against unauthorized construction by Respondent No.5. The court noted that the authorities had removed the illegal structure with effect to a previous order, rendering the writ petition directory and closing the same.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed without costs as the authorities had already removed the illegal construction.

Pandavula Umesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

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

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶8

WRIT PE TITION NO: 5260^{OF 2024}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Pandavula Umesh, S/o.^{P. Yadagiri, Age about. 43 years,Occ Pvt Employee,} ayo.-: ft.ruo z-z-sot, Takara^{Basti,- oldJail Street, AskhokNagar,} Secunderabad, Telangana^State

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. By its Principal Secretary,Municipal-} no minliiiaiion and"Urban^{Dbve16pmentDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶14

2 Greater Hyderabad^{IVlunicipalCorporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank} Bund, Hyderabad

¶15

3 The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC,^{Circle No.30, BegumpetCircle,} Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶16

4 The Assistant City Planner, GHMC,^{Circle No.30, Begumpet Circle,} Hyderabad, Telangana^State

¶17

5 Mr. Shekar, S/o. Hanumamnth^{Rao, Age, Ivlajor'Occ. Business, RloT -2'293'} ti1i6 eidti, old Jail Street, Askhok^{Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana State'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{constitutionof lndia prayingthal in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue any writ, order or^{direction more particularly one in the nature of} wRlT oF MANDAMUS^{declaring the action of the official Respondentsnot taking} any action against the illegal^{andunauthorized constructionberng carriedout by} the Respondent No.5 over^{H.No.7-2-293,rakaraBasti, old Jail Street, Askhok} Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana^{State, by way of encroachingthe road marginof} 6 feet (approx), as illegal, arbitrary^{and violationof principlesof natural justice} besides violation of Article^{14 of constitutionof lndia and consequently directthe}

¶20

official Respondents io remove the illegal and unauthorized structures over H.No.7-2-293. Takara Bastr, Old Jail Street, Askhok Nagar Secunderabad, Telangana state, made by the Respondent No.5 by way of encroaching the road margin of 6 feet (approx)

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 20 24

¶22

. Petition under Sectron 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the official Respondents to remove the iflegar and unauthorizecr struclures over H.No.7-2-293, Takara Basti, Old Jail Street, Askhok Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana state, made by the Respondent No.s by way of encroaching the road margin of 6 feet (approx) by considering the representation dated 24logl2o23 made by the Petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDy, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.5:--

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

t I

¶28

(

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.5260 of 2024

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed to^{declare the action of official} respondents ln taking action against the illegal and^unauthorized construction being carried out by^{respondentNo.5 over H.No.7-2-293} situated at Takara Basti, Old Jail Street,^{Ashok Nagar,Secunderabad by} encroaching the road margin of 6^{feet (approx)as illegal, arbitraryand} violation of principles of natural^justice.

¶33

Heard leamed counsel for the^{petitioner, leamedGovernment} Pleader for Municipal Administration^{and Urban Development} Department appearing on behalf of respondent^{No.1 and Sri K.Ravinder} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of^respondent Nos.2 to 4, and perused the record. With the^{consentof counsel} appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition^{is taken up for hearingand} disposal.

¶34

When the matter is taken up for hearing^{today, leamed Standing} Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent^{Nos.2to 4 submits thatthe} authorities have removed the balcony and staircase constructed^{by the} unofficial respondent by encroaching on to the road^margin.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submits that the respondent}

¶37

authorities have^{taken necessaryactionby removingthe unauhorisedand} illegal construction^{made by the unofficialrespondent'}

¶38

Having regard^{to the submissions made as above, and taking note of} the fact that the^{authorities have given effect to the speaking orderdated}

¶39

|o-|o-2o23byremovingtheillegalandunauthorizedconstructions

¶40

made, no fuither^{orders requiredto be passed in the present Writ} Petition.

¶41

Accordingly,^{the Writ Petitionis closed'No costs'}

¶42

7 As a sequel,^{miscellaneouspetitions,if any, pending shallstand}

¶43

closed.

¶44

SD/.N.RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// 1'}.-

¶45

SECTION C'FFICER

¶46

To, 1. One CC to Sri Bhargavakrishna.L, {Qyo-qq!e-[OPUC] 2. o; CC^{to sri K. Ra"vinderReddy, SC[OPUC]} . . 5. i;; cc.i"^{cp for Muni";ip;i A;minrsiration urbanDevelopment,Highcourt} for the State of^{Telangana, at Hyderabad[OU li}

¶47

Two CD CoPies

TJ KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410312024

ORDER

WP.No.5260 of 2024

)\i
.<br>i il
) ,l
r) 30 IiAY ? 02 4
,. -O
.:
\ C\r(-'). a,' _//

¶56

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

@ct,l,

Pandavula Umesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandavula Umesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rasheed Jabri, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. S.Neeta Jain Vs State of Telangana and 7 Others

Smt. Sridevi, Vs The Commissioner

Pittala Ashok, Vs The State of Telangana

Mallampet Sailu Vs The State of Telangana

Hazari Sanjay Singh Vs The State of Telangana