Disposed

Dandem Durgaiah v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC1 Mar 2024WP/5766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the State's attempt to dispossess and dismantle petitioner's property at Nagasanpally. Court did not examine merits but directed authorities to consider petitioner's representation while maintaining status quo pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained regarding the subject property; respondent No. 2 directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Dandem Durgaiah Vs The State of Telangana and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special OrQinal Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5766 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dandem Durgaiah, S/o: Samaiah, Aged about 54^{yrs, Occu.VRA (Qram9} sevak), Rl/o t-l.No.+-t +tg, Nagasanpaily village,^{Papannapet Mandal, Medak} district.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Secretary,^{Panchayat Raj and Rural} Development Departrnent, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad

¶13

2 The District Collector^(Panchayat Wing),^{Medakdistrict at Medak.} The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Medak division,^Medak.

¶14

The Panchayat Secretary, Nagasanpally Gram^{Panchayat, Nagasanpally,} Papannapet Mandal, Medak district.

¶15

Mallanagari Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o:^{Bhoom Reddy,Sarpanch, Nagasanpally} Gram Pinchayai, Nagasanpally^{village, Papannapet Mandal, Medak district.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more^{particularly one in} the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS,^{declaringthe action of the Respondentsin} trying to dispossess and dismantle the^{petitioner house in premises bearing No.3-} 87/2 admeasuring 60 sq.yards situated at^{Nagasanpally village, Papannapet} Mandal, Medak district as illegal, intentional,^{malafide,arbitrary opposed to} principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent^{No.2to drop} the letter No.157312O21 lA2-Pts dt.^.1 .2022 by^{consideringrepresentation} dt.28.1 .2022 of the^{petitioner forthwith.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶19

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to dismanre the petitioner premises bearing No. 3-g7l2 admeasuring 60 sq yards situated at Nagasanpary vilrage, papannapet Mandar, Medak district.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RAJ KUMAR RUDRA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: cp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R. CHANDRA SEKAHR REDDY, SC FOR TSZP

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

l:^-

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.5766 of 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is frled under Article 226 of the

¶30

Constitution of India for the following reliel

¶31

"...to i.ssue an appropriate Wit, Order or Direction more partianlarlg one in tle nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing tle action of the Respondents in trying to dispossess and dismantle tlrc petitioner tause in premises bearing No.3-87/ 2 admeasuing 60 Sq.yards sihtated at Nagasonpallg uillage, Papannapet Mandal, Medak dbtrict as illegal, intentional, malofrde, arbitrary opposed to pinciples of natural justice and consequentlg d.irect the Respondent No.2 to drop tle letter No.1573/2O21/A2-Pts dt. Nil.O1.2022 bg consideing representation dt.28.O 1.2022 of the p e titioner fo rtfuDit lL . . "

¶32

Heard learned Counsel for tJle petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶33

I t

¶34

L,earned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondentauthorities will consider the representation dated

¶35

;:j

¶36

2a.OL.2022 submitted by ttre petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Iaw.

¶37

In view of the submissions made by both sides, without going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 24.O1.2022 submitted by ttre petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till the disposal of the said representation filed by the petitioner, status guo shall be maintained by the both parties with regard to the subject propert5r. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The District Collector^(Panchayat Wing), Medak district^{at Medak.}

¶46

One CC to Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, Advocate IOPUC]

¶47

One CC to Sri R. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, SC for^TSZP[OPUC]

¶48

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Development,^{High Court for the} State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP k

I J

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 tO3t2OZ4

ORDER

WP.No.5766 of 2O2Z

a 1HE S14 14:
c
k
((
t
oo
2 3 APB zoa
)_
.:
* oF^ na 76vrE-!

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS.

¶58

q&.

Dandem Durgaiah v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dandem Durgaiah v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Smt. Cheemakurthi Naga Raja Kumari Vs The State of Telangana

Ravanaveni Kanakaiah s/o Laxmi Narasaiah, Vs Gangalula Kamalakar

Vice President, Sri Sai Krishna Yadava Sangham, Adilabad Vs Dist Collector, Adilabad Dist and Another

Baddela Buddaiah Vs Sri Naveen Mittal, IAS

Pasula Chennamma Vs The State of Telangana

Devthadf Gnaneshwar Vs The District Collector