Disposed

Merugu Sampath v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2024WP/6735/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition maintaining the status quo and directed respondents not to dispossess or demolish the petitioner's house property without following due legal procedure until the matter is finally decided.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 directed not to dispossess petitioner or demolish the house without following due law; writ petition disposed of.

Merugu Sampath Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

t^316e I

ii lt

lr ll I li I'I l

I I ii

ll lr l

i 1l L ir I l

I l. i, I I i, ll

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶10

(SPecial Original^{J urisdiction)}

¶11

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{THIRD DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶12

PRESENT

¶13

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶14

WRIT PETITION^{NO :6735OF 2O24}

lr li

ll i,, ll i, ir

il ll i

Between:

Merugu Sarnpath, 'i^{S/o. Bhumaiah, Aged about 48 Years'} -Occ'^{Agriculture ,R/o'} S,Chinthakunla^{ViilabekothapalliN/landal, Karivangar District} r.f "]O-Ailr

¶21

...PETITIONER

¶22

AND

¶23

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal^{Secretary' Revenue Department} Secretariat^{Buildings,Hyderabad} -

¶24

The District^{Collector, Karimangar District, Ka.rimangar}

¶25

ri-i" oiiiriit^{Panchayat officer,karimnagarDislrict' Karimnagar}

¶26

+. fne iansirOar,^{Koth6pallitvlandal, KarimangarDistrict} 5. The Chintnat<unta^{-crimpanchayat,n9-o nV its} -^{Panchayat Secretary'} "' inintnafunta Village, Kothapalli Mlndal, Karimangar

¶27

''tt''ll.*TaTONDENTS

¶28

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order^{or Directionmore particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus,^{declaringthe action of the official respondents in tryingto} demolish the^{house property of the petitioner house bearing H-No 6-82115'} situatedatSyNo,l42ofChinthakuntaVillage,Kothapallilvlandal,Karimangar District, the official^{respondents are trying to demolishthe housesof the} petitioner without following^{due processof law is highly illegal' arbitraryand} againsttheprinciplesofnatural.lusticeandalsoviolateofArticlesl4'19'21 and300-4ofConstitutionoflndiaan{gonsequentlydirecttherespondentsnot to interfere into^{the peaceful possessionand en.loymentof the house properties} of the petitioner^{in the interestof} .iustice'

l I t, lt

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner house property bearing H No. 6-82115 situated at Sy No. 142 of Chinthakunta Village, Kothapalli mandal, Karimangar District, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. L. RAVINDER REP M/s. ALLAMPALLY RUPADEVI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2&4:SRI S. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSZILLA PARISHADS

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

L lr i i i l, lr

I I

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICHE^{K. LAKSHMAI{}

¶43

WRIT PETITION^{No.6735 0F 2024}

¶44

ORAL ORDER:

¶45

Heard Mr. L.^{Ravinder, leamed counsel representingMs' A'} Rupadevi, leamed^{counselfor the petitioner and Mr'S 'Srinivas} Reddy, learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for Revenue appearing} on behalf of^{respondentNos' l, 2and 4and also Mr' R'} Chandrashekhar^{Reddy,Iearned Standing Counsel lor 'lS Zilla} Parishads appearing^{on behalf of respondentNo'5'}

¶46

The petitioner^{herein is clairning that he is thc absolute} owner and^{possessor of the housebearir-rgN 6-82115in Survey} No.l42, situated at^{ChinthakuntaVillage, Kothapalli Mandal'} Karimnagar Distr.ict.^{INproof of the same,he has filed Certificate} issued by respondent^{No.5, property tax receipts, report of the Mandal} Surveyor and^{Tahsildar'srepoft submitted to the Revenue Divisional} officertotheeffectthatthelarrdwasaltottedtothesocieties, electricity bills^{and photographsetc. Even then, the respondents'} more particularly,^{respondent Nos.4 and 5 are trying to dispossess the} petitioner from the^{aforesaid housewithout loltowingdue procedure} laid down under law.

¶47

ra .i

¶48

KI..] W P No 6735 ot2024

¶49

¶50

This Court granted status quo on 13.03.2024, and further directed learned Assistant Government pleader. to get specific instructions. Even then, he has not produced any wr.itten instructions from respondent Nos.4 and 5. However, considering the fact that the petitioner herein has filed the afor.esaid ccrlillcate and other documents to show that he is the absolute owner and possessor. of the subject house, respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot demorish the said house without following due procedure laid down under. lau,.

¶51

In the light of the above discussion, this rvrit petirion is disposed of directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to dispossess the petitioner fro,r the aforesaid subject house ,uvithour fbllowing due procedure laid down under law. In the circuntstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶53

the writ petition shall stand closed

¶54

-i:

¶55

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTA NT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶56

¶57

¶58

To, ii 1 Reven ue Department secretariar B uirdings, I 2 iT lU:ltm"cretary' ir 3 ii 4 iff Fiil,,ilFiiqil%^{ffi rrsi',fl ,P;;jffi} :,f,: il :i,,n I ne I ahsildar Kothapa i M.;;;f ri.:i:11'^L-'lrs(Ircl ^arrmnagar fli

¶59

ll;i ":; [r;;3ii r1iti' ff*, x ,3i:r?r,lH:,., c, n,ha k u n,a

C"*H-

o. rwo-ccs to GP FoR PANCHAYAiRAJ AND RURAL
l
- ofVEf-tjpfvENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [oUT]
li
z. iwo Cbs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana' at
Hyderabad [OUT]
a o;l.-c-C io 'snt. ATIAvPALLY RUPADEVI, Advocate [oPUC]
15,&4*-Jo onl- 9. Two CD Copies c'c, +. gri' R' d.^^!te' 5"5+,"1-,bp* '-
'- GJP - So' W ro z-Illo' Pas':t"-dt CoVoc')
I 3-

I: ll li

I I

ll I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATEDts/0412024

/-:- --..-.-
.. r P' l- :' r 't
L)x.
3 0 [1AY 2u24
-' / I
/

ORDER

l, t:

li t,

WP.No.6735 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶81

w.
,."
u9

Merugu Sampath v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merugu Sampath 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

Shaik Khabeer Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Imran Vs Dasari Balaiah

Kommidi Thirupathi Reddy Vs The state of Telangana

D.Muralidhar Reddy Vs D.Srinivas Reddy

Rathlavath Raju Vs The State of Telangana

K. Venkat Reddy Vs Sri G Madhu