Disposed

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/6493/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the laying of a drainage pipeline through their private lane by the Khammam Municipal Corporation. The Respondent provided written instructions that no pipeline has been laid and any future action would follow due process. The Court directed authorities to abide by this undertaking and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to abide by undertaking to follow due process of law regarding drainage pipeline.

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:6493 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna, W/o. Laxmina(ayana,^{Aged about} !9^{years, Occ;-} Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-2-24611,^{tVlustafa Nagar. KhammamCity, Khammam} District.

¶9

Shaik Bikar Saheb, S/o. Mogala^{Saheb, Aged aboul 44 years, Occ} ;^Business, R/o. H.No.5-2-2 46tJl41 , Musiafa Nagar, Khammam^{City, KhammamDistrict.}

¶10

....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Municipal} Administration and Urban Development^{Dept( l\tlA and UD), Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶13

The Khammam Municipal^{Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal} Complex Building, NSP Camp,^{Khammam, KhammamDistrict.}

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of^{lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction,^{more particularly,in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of the 2nd respondentin} proceeding to lay the drainage^pipeline through^{the petitioners 5 feet width and} 65 feet length lane to an^{extent of 36 sq.yards situated in sy.Nos.472lE,4721u} and 473tA of Khammam^{Revenue Village, Sriramnagar Colony, BonakalRoad} within the limits of Khammam^{Municipalcorporation,Khammam District is illegal,} arbitrary, unjust and violation^{of Article 21 and 300-A of the constitutionof lndia} and against to the^principles to^{the natural justice and violationof Telangana} Municipalities Act and consequently^{direct the 2nd respondentnot to interfere} into the petitioners 5 feet^{width and 65 feet length lane to an extent of 36}

¶16

sq.yards situated in Sy.Nos.472lE, 4721U and 4731A of Khammam Revenue Village, Sriramnagar Colony, Bonakal Road within the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam District. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶17

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 direct the direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the petitioners 5 feet width and 65 feet length lane to an extent of 36 sq.yards situated in Sy.Nos.472lE, 4721U and 4731A of Khammam Revenue Village, Sriramnagar Colony, Bonakal Road within the limits of Khammam lrrlunicipal Corporation, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRt K.SANTHOSH RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P.SRIDHAR RAO

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUNTAR WRIT PETITION No.6493 of 2024

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶23

" .... to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of lhe 2'd respondent in proceeding to lay the drainage pipeline through the petilioners 5 feet width and 65 feet length lane to an extenl o/ 36 sq. yords situated in Sy.Nos.472/E, 472/U and 473/A of Khammam Revenue village, Sriramnagar Colony, Bonakal Road, within the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam District is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of A.rticle 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against to lhe principles to the naturol^{justicc ancl} violation of Telangona Municipalities Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the pelilioners 5 Ieet^{width and65} feet^{length lane to sn extent of 36 sq. yards} situated in Sy.Nos.472/E, 472/U antl 173/A of Khamnant Revenue Village, Sriramnagar Colony, Bonakal Road v'ithin the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporalirsn, Khommam District, ...^"

¶24

Z. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed Govemment Pleader for Municipal Administration^{and Urban} Development appearing on behalf of respondent No. t and Sri P.Sridhar Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition^is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage

¶25

¶26

The case of the petitioners in brief is that while they are the absolute owners of plot admeasuring 36.1 I sq. yards situated in Sy.Nos.472iE, 472N and 4731A of Khammam Town and District, the respondent authorities are seeking to lay a drainage pipeline from their property without following due process of law

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent has placed before this Court the written instructions 15 -03-2024 under the signature of the

¶28

2nd respondent.

¶29

By the said written instructions, it is stated as under:

¶30

'' ln this connection, ir is to submit lhat this 2'd respondent's ffice has not laid any drainage pipeline through the pelilioners land siluated in Sy.Nos.472/8, 472/U and 173/A of Khammam Revenue Village and in the event o/ laying any drainage pipeline in the petitioners' private plot, this respondent's office will follow the due process of law ".

¶31

By the aforesaid written instructions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent submits that the respondent authorities have stated that the said respondent authority has not laid any drainage pipeline through petitioners' land, and qhat in the event of authorities laying any drainage

¶32

¶33

¶34

pipeline in petitioners' private land,^{the respondent authorities} would follow due process of^{law. The written instructionsas}

¶35

placed before this Court is taken on record.

¶36

7 . Having regard to the aforesaid^{submissions,this Court is of} the view that the respondent^{authorities should be directedto} abide by the above said^{undertaking made in the written} instructions submitted to this Court^{tfuough the leamed Standing}

¶37

Counsel.

¶38

Subject to above^{direction,this Writ Petition is disposed of'}

¶39

No costs.

¶40

g. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending i[ any shalt

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI N OFFICER

l.ThePrincipalsecretary,MunicipalAdmjnistrationandUrbanDevelopment Oeot f frrfn bnd UD), Se'cretariat,^{State of Telangana at Hyderabad'}

¶47

1. ihSi;;"ii"*i, Khammam Municipal^{Corforation,Municipal Complex} Buildino. NSP Camp. Khammam,^{Khammam District'}

¶48

1. iilCd! i" Gi FoH^{MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, Hish court for the} State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.} [OUT]

¶49

+. One-CC to Srik.Santho-sh^{Ravi Kumar, Advocate[OPUCI}

¶50

One CC to Sri^{P.Sridhar Rao' Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD CoPies

KKS

@,2

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

ORDER

WP.No.6493 of 2024

..
1 t\a -( ia ,"1,
G
( o .<br>'i a,l
I
I ':f 1 n nu 2tt2l
Ii r)
).
ir! "
-a-

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

t{,
b( tt
qP2L

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna 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

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The state.of Telangana

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The State of Telangana

Lailaunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mahmood Builders Pvt. Limited, Vs the State of Telangana

Giri Raj Jain Vs The State of Telangana