Writ petition seeking removal of a wall constructed without setbacks, plus road-laying and drainage. Counsel submitted the cause did not survive adjudication; the court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as infructuous, closing pending miscellaneous petitions without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
i^/ ii
[3383 I
8,r
: ! t : t I t i I
I Ii
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original J urisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIvIEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION O:1027 OF 2015
Between:
Ponnam Amarender Goud, S/o Ramaiah Goud, Aged about 55 years R/o H.No.7-2925 36th Division, Mankammathota, Karimnagar.
AND
.....PET|T!ONER
....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particu{ar,lyone in the nature of writ of rnandamus declaring the action of the respondents in non rcmoving the wall which was constructed by the respondent No.4 without setbacks as arbitrary and iltegal and also violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia consequently direct the respondents to remove the wall and to lay the road and also construction of drainage.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2015(WPMP.NO:1293 OF 20151
Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be p{eased to
direct the respondent No.3 to consider the representations dated 23.05.2009, 08.01 .2015, 119.01 .2015 and 21.01.2015 till such time not to take any construction activity.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI p.SAJAN KUMAR
counsel for tlhe Respondent No.l : Gp FoR McpL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMHNT /
Counsel for the Respondent l,lo.2 : Gp FOR REVENUE
counsel for the Respondent No.3 : sRt K. SIDDARTH REDDY (sc FoR Mc KAR)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : -
The Court made the following ORDER
,1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WP.No.1027 of 2015
OR4ERz
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following substantive
relief,
,.r'..
"... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.l to 3 in not removing the wall which was constructed by respondent No.4 without setbacks as arbitrrtry and illegal and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 oJ- the constitution of India and consequently, to clirect respondent Nos.l to 3 to renxove the wall and to lay the road and al.so c ons truc tton of dr ainage. "
petitioner submitted that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive
for adjudication,
inf,rucfuous.
costs.
SD/. L. VIJAYA LA)(MI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII 6 SEMN OFFICER
To
2' IffiPffl:,frio* REVilTuE, Higi, dffitiin" stare or reransana at
SA GJP9*q.
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:O1lggn025
3 11i,:-:,ft
() '2
O
7, ? JA}l 2026
* *'
t'
ORDER
WP,No.'1027 of 2015
DISMISIiING THE W.P
AS ]NFFIUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.
s\r>-a
1 issue framed by the court
Should the respondents remove a wall built by respondent No.4 without setbacks and lay road and drainage?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ponnam Amarender Goud
The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department
The District Collector, Karimnagar District
The Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation
Mr. Srinivas
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
