Disposed

Vangala Kesava Bhat. v. The State Of Telangana.

Telangana HC1 May 2025WA/482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against an interim order passed in a pending writ petition concerning a municipality notice. On consent of all parties, the Division Bench held a Single Judge could not direct implementation of the underlying order in a writ petition and set aside the impugned interim order for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim order dated 15.04.2025 set aside; writ petition to be reheard afresh on interim relief; no costs.

Vangala Kesava Bhat. Vs The State Of Telangana. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE FIRSTDAY OF MAY} iwo iiousnND^{ANDTwENTYFlvE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THEACTIN.G-CHIEFJUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND rHE HoNouRnaLr^{siliJusTlcE RENUKAYARA}

¶6

WRIT A^{PPEALNO:4820F2025}

¶7

Writ Appeal^{under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order} daled^{1510412025in W P No 10378of 2025 on the file of the HighCourt'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Q^n''n'ra/2nA sastrv' Aqed^{about 75 years'}

¶10

n ft'

¶11

'^{X::n t1,ll?:: "€,:} ^PJ."u^{)i: 33:Y3i:131flj' ;1:'''i'';in;;ja u vo e rao a o} L"'1'3^; j3 .

¶12

:"',:Y z,'3^{31;'t1 "$'xTJl} "3

¶13

'^{y:l[:* 3 :'dl: ",i i€j Br]1'"s} "[ .,'APPEI-LANTS"j

¶14

AND

¶15

1 rhe State^{of relanganaRep bv its PrinciPal Seglttil} B"fl1lTo?$n3l ilr""iJ"?i^{Iiministr"ation.anci uiban Developmen} T'#lisH,^{bi-ateSe"r"tarlatat Hvderabad}

¶16

2 The Manikonda^{Municipality'Repby its Commissioner' Manikonda'Ranga} ReddY^District.

¶17

3 The Town^{PlanningOfficer'Manikonda Municipality' Manikonda'Ranga} ReddY^District'

¶18

. Late^{M. Sa}

¶19

1. M.Krishna^MurthY,S/o R/o. 1-10-2' 'f il,"[3% t'^{R,#,io'i3fl:li,,f :L';}

¶20

Occ.^{Retd. Service,} Nilayam,^Dilsukhnaga r, Hyderabad

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO:¹ o^{F 2025}

¶23

petition under section 151 cpc^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Cou( maYbe pleasedto} suspend^{impugned interim order daled '15 04'2025 passed by the Learned} Single Judge^{Justice Vijaysen Reddy in WP No 10378 of 2025 pendingWrit} Appeal

( I i i i iI

l i i I , ; l

i I

IA NO: 20F :2025

Petitron under Section -l5i cpc praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Cou:.t may be pleased to suspend Notic'-' No 9552rG1/UCrrps^\ANKt2o2s dated 1ti.03.2025 issued by Respondent rrc.2 Municipality under section .17g (2) and jl30 (1) of Telangana Municipa"es Ac;t 201g and consequenry direct the respondrsnts not to ."r",,.n il:,.)lil'lo',,,,i',',,'li,i,,,,ii,i'i;,,,;;:::.,,';; r;,+0,1,,o, ,i1,,,* ii; situated at sriranr Nagar colony, puppalaguda Village, Gandrpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District passed by the Learned Single Judge in Wp No. 10378 ot 2OZ5 pending Writ ApDeal

¶29

Counsel for the Appeltants: SRt DOMTNIC FERNANDES, REp. FOR SRI ABHINAV KRISHNA uppelriir-'.

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K.LAXMAIAH, SC f:OR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.RAVI

¶31

The Coqrt delivered the foltowing: JUOGMENT

1 I ! I i I

I I I

1 l i

I I

CHIEF^{JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} THE^{HON'BLE THE ACTING} tI3tr",^{RENUKA YARA} TIIE^{HON'BLE SMT'} N o.^{482of 2} o25 WRIT

¶38

T (Per^{the Hon'bte theActingChtefJushce SujogPaul):} JUD counsel^rePresents learned Sri^Domrnrc Fernandes, counsel^forthe learned Krishna^UPPalurL Sri^Abhinav appellants;^{Sri K'} alitY,^{Laxmaiah' for resPondent learnedNos'2Standing and 3 and Counsel Sri forG'} Manikonda^Munrctp Ravi,^{learned counsel for respondentNo'4'}

¶39

I tt

¶40

\ \

¶41

With^{the consent' linallY heard'} 2. 3. During^{the course of hearing'learned counsel for the} parties^{reachedto a consensus and agreed ttrat in W'P'No 10378} of^{2O25ti1edby the present appellants assailing the order dateh} 1g.03.2025,^{the course ope11 to the rearned SingleJudge was} either^{to allow the writ petidonor to dismiss it'Similarly' for the} purpose^{of interim relief' the course open to the learnedSingie} Judge^{was either to grant stay againstthat order or reject the} same.^{LearnedSingle Judge was not justified in directing} implementation^{of orderdated 18'03' 2025 \n a writ petitionfiled} by the^{presentappel'lants'Thus' it is agreed that said order maY}

¶42

1 ! I

¶43

¶44

be set asi,l,: an ci be directed to be, heard afresh by the iearne . .,"_:;:;'-* 4' In rzi.^*, or, arrived at, the imlrugned 61ds1 dated r5.0zr.ror, ,1",- l::"""" rn w'P'No' 10378 of 2c appellants ?rr: free set aside' The press their tnterim tt'" 't singie Judge:. Learn the learned single Jridgs parties on the ,"o"","0 '"^t"r"t'before to rehear the of interim relief arrd ou'"""t"d - -'q pass order at..esh. s. with ,al.resaic, .-.r _--,., *o without express merits of the case, ,nr,' I an! opinion sa1 ; writ Appear i" di"po". ld of l{o c csts. Interjoc r lorJ applicatio..," i. stard closed -'"' rr ary pending, s rral] also

¶45

//rRuE copytt ,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[,copytt ,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[,,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[,

¶46

ro, //rRuE copytt ,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[,copytt ,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[,,., ,.ro:R'it.tS,5iEi[, I r;prutT;;1;:;,. ffd;il

¶47

l f;l:11itr^{{; ::r"T;:" J::,i;111} #i;:":,,,l":T^l;i?

¶48

i #f trrsstffifi#ffiifi [,",".",ffi^{,.;;;J:J" .:,r r} ;I#1iEsl';,"ruIlfa,'"',+ifi^{[".-[B!6,[!LTt?Jn.",n,o,,nu.,,,uo,}

BSR BS

i I

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10512025

JUDGMENT

WA.No.482 of 2025

g'"t I rr : ii f:1,/ t.
(
)
o
07. ,qAl M 2
c.
* .li<br>:SD,',Tat.t
-=:=2

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL,

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

& rlpt-

Vangala Kesava Bhat. v. The State Of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vangala Kesava Bhat. 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. Amma Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Rekha Sharraf Vs Birla Mallesh

Smt. R. Laxmi Siroll Vs Kandikanti Devender Goud

M/s. Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

P. Hanumantha Rao Vs Smt. Renuka

M/s. Shri Shamlaji Sales Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)