Partly allowed

Sri. Jadhav Gopal Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2024WP/5902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of the District Collector and Special Deputy Collector regarding a statutory appeal against building permission. The Court directed the District Collector to dispose of the appeal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to conclude or dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri. Jadhav Gopal Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³³⁰² I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE SECONDDAY OF APRIL} N,TIO iHOUSNND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PE^{TITION NO:5902oF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

; MPrc^{R/o 4-}

¶9

36., 3flf,131,33fli[X"df'..',#",lu,i?:..ifl:S"3':''"Xlfil:"6'dfff

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{of Telangana,Repby its Principal Secretarv Panchayat Raj and} Rural Development^{o"paiii#"ri n aC'[tb"dkar6havan'secretariat'} Hyderabad

¶13

The^{District CollectorPanchayatWing' Adilabad District at Adilabad'}

¶14

The^{District Panchayat Officer' Adilabad' Adilabad District'}

¶15

The Special^{Deputy Collector' (T.W)' Utnoor Head Ouarters' Adilabad District}

¶16

speciarof^{f icer}

¶17

'Ii;"y,'31:i:,:'l'"[:i:t',"Jsslffi^{:l8jl"f !:l:JBl]ilff}

¶18

The^{Gram Panchayat Utnoor' Utnoor MandalAdilabad District Rep by its} Special^Officer.

¶19

S/o. Rajaram,^{Aged Maior, Occ Business'R/o Utnoor}

¶20

1. Sri. Karpe^Sattanna Village ind^Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶21

.....RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 Directioh' more particularly one in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus,^{to declare the actionof the RespondentsNo 2 and 4 in not} conclud^{ing/d isposingof the statutory Appeal filed Uls'121 of Telangana} Panchayat^{Raj Act and the proceedings initiated in TWA1/89/22on the file of the} Respondents^{NO.2 and 4 respectivery, in respectof buirding permission granted}

¶23

in favour of the Respondent No.7 in Proceedings No.3lBP12022, dl. 1210412022 issued by the Respondent No.6, as illegal, arbitrary against the provisions of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, against the provisions of Telangana Schedule Area (Land Transfer) Regulations, in violation of principles of natural^justice and against all settled principles of law and consequently direct the.Respondents not to commence the usage of the premises Door No.'1 1-167, situated at Utnoor Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, constructed by the Respondent No.7 in pursuant to the building permission dt. 1210412022.

¶24

|.A,NO:1 OF 2024

¶25

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 direct the Respondents not to commence the usage of the premises Door No. 1 1- 167, situated at Utnoor Village and Mandal, Adilabad .District, constructed by the Respondent No 7 in pursuant to the building permission dt. 1210412022, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AKKAM ESHWAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : SRI R.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : -

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

I t

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶33

WRIT PEIITION No.59O2 of 2024

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is frled urder Article 226 of the

¶36

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶37

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Maldamus, to declare the action of the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 in not concluding/disposing of the statutory Appeal hled U/s 121 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and the proceedings initiated in TWAI /a9122 on the file of the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 respectively, in respect of building permission granted in favour of the respondent No.7 in Proceedings No.3lBPl2022, dt.l2l04/2022 issued by the Respondent No.6 as illegat, arbitrary against the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, against the provisions of the Telangana Schedule Area^(t-and Transfer) Regulations, in violation of principles of natural^justice and against all settled principles of law and consequently direct^the Respondents not to commence the usage of the premises^Door No.11-167, situated at Utnoor Village and Mandal, Adilabad District constructed by the Respondent No.7 in pursuant to the building permission dl. 12l04l2022 and to pass..."

¶38

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

¶39

learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri R.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 6 and perused the record.

¶40

In view of the submissions made by both sides^and without going into merits of the case, this Writ petition is

¶41

disposed of directing the respondent No.2^to

¶42

\ " 'Tffi!

¶43

¶44

conclude/dispose of the statutory appeal frled by the petitioner on 12.09.2022 under Section 121 of the Teiangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 against the resolution passed by the respondent No.6 on 19.04.2022 for grant of building permission to the respondent No.7 herein, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/. K.SREERAMA^MURTY - ASSISTAUT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

to,' 2. ., The D.R. n " p^District BR ri n c Ambedkar i pa r^{couectoi'p1"rilii#iwi"g'} t **5fl;;i^E : B:1YEt,?,:l^{Aoflabad District} :Si,ET?-i?i"Y.",l:iT^{at Adilabad:iL'r:8 ilffi :'} i: +ii;^{Di;i;i;i F,n"r,.rvrt6ffi'Eilnoir'n"'o' Adirabad} BiXL"i;. Adirabad^District ;. il; Sil"l^{Deputy'Collector' (T W)' U--tnoor He€} ruii'a*r#d,ltiiflttr$fifff g','l3#]iilsi;fi :i:.::"'

¶51

The^{Special Officer,} 7. District.Two CCs^{to GP FOR PANCHAYATRAJAND RURAL DEV' HighCourt for} 8. " th;-siJ; One CC One CC CC^{to Sri AkkarAkkar} oireransana^{Sri AkkarAkkar} at *Xiiiii,?l#?&rq

¶52

" th;-siJ; One CC One CC CC^{to Sri AkkarAkkar} e. one cc^{to sri R c#;;;'b;i''h;;RAai'Advo'cate(oPuc)}

1o Two^{CD CoPies}

SA LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210412024

ORDER

WP.No.5902 of 2024

1UE S14r c
I oB
q o(
o
(-)
2 3 APH 2024
)Io
, D s.ATct<br>

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

<br>I
q Y-D

Sri. Jadhav Gopal Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jadhav Gopal Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Sharfuddin Ahmed, Vs The Grampanchayath, Turkala Mohamadapur Village

Katta Veakat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Jaya Prakash Aswani Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Anil Kumar Sanghi Vs Union of India

Mr.Diviti Raj Das Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Rajender Kumar Jain Vs The Special Deputy collector (La), Unit-I,Orr