Sri. Vinayak Rao Patil Vs B.Srinivas Rao — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Vinayak Rao Patil Vs B.Srinivas Rao — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Appeal disposed of permitting the appellant to file his response/objection with relevant documents before the official respondents in terms of paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 in W.P.No.2578 of 2025; no opinion expressed on merits; no costs; pending interlocutory applications (IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2025) stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be disposed of by permitting the appellant to file his response/objection, along with relevant documents, before the official respondents when put to notice as per the directions in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 in W.P.No.2578 of 2025.

Court's answer

The Writ Appeal is disposed of by permitting the appellant to file his response/objection, along with relevant documents, before the official respondents, pursuant to the directions in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order; learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 had no objection to this prayer.

Ratio / Principle

It was made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara) disposed of Writ Appeal No.224 of 2025, preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2578 of 2025. The appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) complained that the learned Single Judge had not put him to notice; his counsel submitted that he would be satisfied if the appeal were disposed of by permitting him to file his response/objection, along with relevant documents, when put to notice as per the directions in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 (GHMC officials) had no objection to this 'innocuous prayer'. The Bench disposed of the appeal accordingly, making clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits, awarded no costs, and directed that pending interlocutory applications (IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of demolition of premises No.18-6-1076, Balagunj, Gowlipura, Hyderabad, and consideration of a representation dated 01.02.2025 under Sections 455 and 455-AA of the GHMC Act) stand closed.

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

TtIE'HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 224 OF 2025

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the Order dated 30/01/2025 in W.P No. 2578 of 2025 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

Sri. Vinayak Rao Patil, S/o. Late Madhav Rao Patil, Aged about. 77 Years, Occ. Retired person, Rl/o. H.No.1 8-6-1076, Balagunj, Outside Laldarwaza, Gowlipura, Hyderabad, T.S-500053.

.,.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5

AND

1 B.Srinivas Rao, S/o: Late B.Balakrishnaiyya, Aged about.76^years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o. H.No.18-6^-107611 , Balagunj, Lal darwaza, Hyderabad, T.S-500053.

...RESPOruOCruT/WRIT PETITIONER

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

4 The Zonal Commissioner, Charminar Zone, GHIVIC Charminar Hyderabad.

5 The Assistant City Planner, Circle No.7, GHMC Charminar, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1,2,3,4 in the Main Writ Petition

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleasedto pass} an order for stay^{of demolition} of the^property bearing^{No.'1 8-6-1076, admeasuring}

156 sq. Yards or 130-43 sq. Mts situated at Balagunj, outside Lal Darwaza, Gowlipura , Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

. 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 to consider the representation dt. 01-02-2025 made by the appeal U/s. 4554 and 455 AA of the GHCM Act, and to take an immediate action by following due process of law in respect of the property bearing NO. 18-6-1076, admeasuring 156 sq. Yards or 130-43 sq. Mts situated at Balagunj, outside Lal Darwaza, Gowlipura, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI AADESH VARMA

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMIN|STRATiON URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI G. SUSHANTH KUMAR, REPRESENTS SRI R. VENKATESH, SC FOR GREATER HYDERABAD MUNTCTPAL CORPORATTON(GHMC)

The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

\

I

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND TIIE IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

WRIT APPEAL No.224 of 2025

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting ChieJ Justice Sujog Paul):

Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Sushanth Kumar, learned counsel represents Sri R. Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2 Learned counsel foi the appellant submits that the learned Single^judge has not put the appellant to notice. However, he will be satisfied, if this appeal IS disposed by permitting the appellant to file his response/ objection, along with relevant documents, when he will be put to notice^{as per} the directions contained in paragraph No.5 of the^impugned order dated 3O.O1.2025 of learned Single Judge in^W.P.No.2578 of 2025

.l Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5^{has no} objection to this innocuous^prayer.

4 Accordingly, this Writ APPeal 1S disposed of by permitting the appellant to file his response/objection, along :,vrith relevant documents,^{before the oflicial respondents.} It is

2

made clear that this Court^{has not expressed any opinion on}

merits of the case.^{No costs.}

Interlocutory applications,^{ifany pending,shall also}

{

stand closed

SD/.T. KRIS^{HNA KUMAR} REGISTRAR ON OFFICER

//TRUE^COPY//

To,

' E::,Erj{,ir}:'"F:#jss?s}t1la^{::il"::::li'l':*,}

ifl#$u'-:m;+g[,1ii'ffi4,,".a9$ :::.':,".

D eve^{o pm e n'i H is h} '^{lirpr:lJq,H* iy : t !":'"x, i? ilxI :Is':&3t'i"}

Two^{CD CoPies} TJ BS

,

4

HIGH COURT

URGENT

DATED:21 10212025

ORDER

WA.No.224 o12025

:- a=:::
/, (i
i
:'' I
2 4 rtB Zrfi il
't!
,,|; -t- .:
\i

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS

/J /t /45 J//