Disposed

Thakur Prakyath Singh v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/6500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-joint writ petition challenged the illegal erection of display boards by TSRTC authorities alleging ownership of 1358.50 sq yards of land and threatening trespass. The court directed the authorities to consider pending representations with an opportunity of hearing before further action.

What did the court decide?

Order directing Respondents No. 3 and 4 to consider pending representations from 11.09.2023 and 07.10.2023 within four weeks, duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Thakur Prakyath Singh Vs The State of Telengana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^{3300 ]}

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 6500 OF 2024

¶7

Between

¶8

Thakur Prakyath Singh, S/o^{Vijaychander Singh Aged-,.30 years} Occ: Pvt service R/o 2i-6-2o2t11,^{Ploi uo.so3 Dwaraka nagar Hunterroad} Hanamkonda District

¶9

Thakur Sairam Singh,^{S/o Thakur RavichanderSingh. Aged..2^8,ye3rq} Occ: Government iervice No^{24-3-8517Prakashreddypet Subedari} Hanamkonda District

¶10

Miss Thakur Priyanka,^{D/o ThakurRavichanderSingh Aged. 3'1} ,years Occ. Housewife No^{24-3-8517Prakashreddy pet Subedari Hanamkonda} District

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telengana,^{Rep.by its PrincipalSecretary Roads and Transport} Department Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chairman and^{Managing Director, TelenganaState Road Transport} Corporation Ltd Musheerabad^Hyderabad.

¶15

The Regional^{Manager Warangal- l, Telengana State RoadTransport} Corporation Ltd Warangal^District.

¶16

The Depot Manager Warangal^{- I Depot,Telengana State Road Transport} Corporation Ltd.-.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of} Writ of ivIANDAMUS By declaring the action^{of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 in} illegally erecting sign/display board^{thatthe land belongs to TSRTCin the property} of petitioners to an extent of^{'1358-50sq yards bearing H.No1-1 58 constructedin} Sy No 201lB situated at Jaffargadh^{village and GP,Janagaon Districtand not}

¶19

considering the representation of the petitioners dated 7-10-2023^{addressed to} Respondent No.3 to remove the sign/display board from the^property of^the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art.'14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and Consequentially to restrain the Respondent No.3 and 4 from claiming or grabbing the^property of thepetitioners to an exlent of 1358-50 sq^yards bearing H.No. 1-158 constructed in Sy No 201lB situated at Jaffargadh village and GP Janagaon Distrrct for any^purpose.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 respondent No. 3 and 4 to immediately remove the sign display board showing that the lands belongs to TSRTC in the property of petitioners to an extent of 1358 -50 Sq Yards bearing H.No.1-158 constructed in Sy No 201/B situated at jaffargadh Village and GP Janagaon District.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. M ANAND KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : SRI GADDAM SRINMS, SC FOR RTC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.65 oo oF 20.24

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed for following reliet-

¶30

"....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS Bg declaing the action of the Respondent No 3 nnd 4 in iLtegalLg erecting sign/ displag board that the land belongs to ISRTC in the propertg of petitioners to an extent of 135850 sq yards beoring H No 1158 constructed in Sy .No.2OL/B stuated ot Jaffargadh uillage and GP Janogaon District ond, not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 7102023 addressed to Respondenf No 3 to remoue the sign/ displag board from the propertg of the petitioners is illegal arbitrary uiolatiue of Art 14, 21 and 3OOA of the Constitution of India and Consequentict\Lg to restraitl the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from claiming or grabbing the propertA of the petitioners to an extent of 135850 sq yards beaing H No 1158 constructed in Sg.No.2O1/B situated ot Jaffargadh uillage and GP Janagaon Distnct for anq purpose and- pass such other order or orders...."

¶31

Heard Sri M.Anand Kumar learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Transport

¶32

Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of total extent of 1358.50 Sq.yards in Sy.No.2O1lB Jaffargadh Village and GP Janagaon District. The grievance of petitioners is that, the RTC authorities, without having any right and title are trying to illegaily grab the property. In September 2023, thte

¶33

)

¶34

R'l'C offtcials illegally erected display boards stating that land belongs to them. Petitioners are stated to have submitted representation to the 3'd respondent on l1 .O9.2023, 07.1O.2O23 for removing the same, but is vain. While so, on 17.01.2024, when petitioners were not in the house, RTC authorities illegally trespassed into the property and damaged boundary stones, and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, petitioners have filed complaint dated l8.Ol .2024 with the Assistant Commissioner of police Va.rdannapet and Jaffargadh, but no action has been taken so far.

¶35

Since the representation said to have been submitted by petitioners on 11.O9.2023 and 07.10.2023 are pending consideration, without going into the merits of the matter, respirndent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the said same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

¶36

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, at the admission stage with the consent of Sri M.Anand Kumar ,

¶37

¶38

learned counsel for^{petitionersand Sri Gaddam Srinivas,}

¶39

learned Standing Counsel^{for RTC.}

¶40

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{petitions,ifany}

¶41

pending, in this writ petition shall^Standclosed.

assr3rDl0iye?3'!ffiR

/rrRUE coPY/i

aa"r,oMra,"a*

To, 1. The^{Principal Secretary Roads and Transport Department Stateof Telengana'} Secretariat,^Hyderabad- ;tate Road Road^Transport

¶46

z in" cnri*an^{andManaging Director' TelenganaS} ;tate Road Road^Transport

¶47

Corporation Ltd Musheerabad Hyderabad'

¶48

Corporation Ltd Musheerabad Hyderabad'

¶49

3 il"" R;;i;"ui-^{Mrn"gur il"''ig'r - l' Telenganastate Road Transport}

¶50

Corporation^{Ltd Warangal District'}

¶51

q ihJ D"p"t Munrg", vi"r.*!'i--^{I Depot'TelenganaStateRoad Transport} Corporation^{Ltd ..}

¶52

s 6"JcC'i.^{SRI M ANAND KUMAR' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶53

Two^{CCs to GP FoRTRANdFoRi"High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶54

Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶55

?. iji;"cCi;dnroAoonr'r^{sRlNlvAS,sc FoR Rrc loPUCl}

¶56

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶57

¶58

BS w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310312024

ORDER

WP.No.6500 ot 2024

1 t{ r-- i4r 6'
(
e(
ooJ 2 3 APR 2024 z
-ai
*
sEn rcH g-O

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

\^cflva ;is,tY

Thakur Prakyath Singh v. The State of Telengana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Prakyath Singh v. The State of Telengana

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

Mohd. Iqbal Ali Vs The Director of Agriculture Marketing Dept

Prop, M/S.Microl Remedies, Rr District Vs Commr and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and Another

Bollineni Ravindranath Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

M/s. Vermin Solutions and Drip Irrigation Systems Vs The State of Telangana

J.J.Ilesh, , Ilaiah, S/o Peddulu, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra

M/S. Viswas Security Force, Rep.by M.Partner, Khammam. Vs the Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.,Rep.by Md.,Hyderabad, and 5