Disposed

Jamalpur Hussainji v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/18525/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Gram Panchayat notice directing removal of his Kirana shop as unauthorized construction without a show cause notice. Court directed respondents to treat the notice as a show cause notice, permit explanation by 15.07.2025, consider it, and pass orders before coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 16.06.2025 to be treated as show cause notice; petitioner may submit explanation with documents by 15.07.2025; orders before any coercive steps.

Jamalpur Hussainji Vs State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²¹⁹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1 852s OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

lf,lISPrI ly."ainji,.^{S/o Naren Ji, Aged 41 years,Occ ; Business,Bommanpaily} Vrllage, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary, panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.'

¶12

The District Panchayat Officer, Nagarkurnool, Telangana.

¶13

The Panchayat Secretary, Bommanpally Village Achampet Mandal Nagarkumool District. T.S.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the orders under the caption of notice directing the petitioner to remove the Kirana shop(Manikanta Kirana Shop) situated at Bommanpally gram panchayat, Achampet, - Mandal --- -,-.* Nagarkurnool District within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, vide impugned Notice N Ol lGPl2O2S dated 16.06.2025, without issuing the show cause notice oppo(unity in violation of principles of natural justice of notice as illeg highhanded cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequenfly direct th respondents not to remove or demolish the shop (Manikanta Kirana shop situated at Bommanpally gram panchayat, Achampet Mandar Nagarkurnoor District in the interest of justice.

¶16

l.A.NO:1^OF2025

¶17

Petition^{UnderSection151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleased to} directtherespondentnottodemolishtheshop(ManikantaKiranaShop)Situated at Bommanpally^{grampanchayat, AchampetMandalNagarkurnoolDistrict} pending disposal^{of abovewrit petition in the interest of iustice'}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRICH'SRINIVAS'ADVOCATE FOR SRIR'JANAKI} RAM

¶19

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1 : GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJAND RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3 : SRI K'PRADEEP REDDY' LEARNED} iilr.rbrr.rc^{couNSEL FoR GRAM PANcHAYAT}

¶21

The Court^{made the foltowingORDER}

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 18525 of2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging notice dated 16.06.2025 on the ground that it is not a show cause notice, but it is an order of removal of unauthorized construction made by the petitioner.

¶28

This Court vide orders dated 01.07.2025 has directed the parties to maintain stalus quo as on that date.

¶29

¶30

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for Gram panchayat, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner,s shop is in the Gram Panchayat land and Lherefore, a notice rvas rssued lor removal of the.unauthorized construction made by him. It is submitted that totally rhere were three shops in that area and two shops have been removed by the persons who have raised the structures on their own and since the petitioner has not removed the structures, notice has been given to him.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the shop ol thc oetitioner has been in existence for the past 20 years ald therefore, without

¶33

¶34

¶35

issuing any notice to him calling^{for his explanation,the} respondents could not^{havedirecte<iremoval ofthe} structure straight awaY.

¶36

In viern, of the above^{submissions,this Court directs} the respondents to treat^{the notice dated 16'06'2025 as a} shou, cause notice and^{permit the petitionerto submit his} explanation thereto^{along with the relevant documentson} or before 15.07 .2025^{and thereafter, the respondents are} directed lo consider^{the same and pass appropriate orders} before taking any^{furthercoercive steps againstthe} property of the Petitioner.

¶37

Accordingly, the^{vvrit petition is disposed of'There} shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶38

Miscellaneous applications,^{ifany, pending inthis}

¶39

writ petition, shall^{stand closed'}

¶40

SD/. M. OSMAN^{ALI BAIG} STANT^REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To Secretariat,^HYderabad

¶44

1 The PrinciP^{al Secretary, PanchaYat Raj Departm} f Telangana^at

¶45

2 The District^{Panchayai Officer, Nagarkumool,Sta} Telangana.

¶46

: ine F-ancf,avat^{Secretary, Bommanpally Village AchampetMandal} Naoarkurnool^{District. T.S.}

¶47

4 r'ffi cc;'i;tF'Foii^{pn-r.rcHAyArRAJ AND RURAL DEVELoPMENT, Hish}

¶48

d;d f";ti; State orTetangana at Hvderabal t9.UTl

¶49

One^{CCto SRI R.JANAKIRAM,Advocate[oPUUl} -

¶50

;- 6;; cc^{i; aRi k.Fneoeei riEoov, rcnh1EDSTANDTNG couNSEL} " ion-cneu PANCHAYAT, Advocate (oPUC)

¶51

Two^{CD CoPies}

SA GJP

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0210712025

2----:'."::--::
."4. ',i'':' :' t i't
17 SIP liuc
.ia
't. + ,/,
,, ,;;/
D{..; t,t1(

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.18525^{of 2025}

¶58

DISPOSING^{OF THE W.P}

¶59

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶60

/a
/5
/.

Jamalpur Hussainji v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamalpur Hussainji v. 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

Rondla Sunil Reddy Vs The Panchayat Secretary

Jambalabai @ Kamsani Madhava Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Sri Subramaneswara Rice Mill Vs The State of Telangana

Edigi Narayana , Kandivanam Narayana Goud , Vs State of Telangana

Bhadur Narsimulu Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Directer

Dongre Keshav Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Commissioner