Disposed

Katam Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025WP/4223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought to restrain the Korutla Municipality from demolishing a small existing basement built to protect her land and crops. The Court found it was a very small structure, not fresh construction, and disposed of the writ petition directing the Municipality not to demolish it.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed not to demolish the existing small basement; petitioner restrained from constructing over it or obstructing the way; no costs.

Katam Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR (Special Originat . Ar HYDEIIEIfE Jurisdiction;^{oF TELANGANA}

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENi' FIVE'^'""'''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRITP ETITION NO:4223 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

[fliT-:Hf ,?"i,sXli1,[flSjx1,*#80,3?,,"#lfoo#Si!;,,?",,!,01,"o,,??,H,,",

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanr Ai!:g"J:1lH?ilgi[?,I33;.',#};J#BT;'.i,"3;:]g;XH;[,1s,,,,,,n,",

¶12

2 The Korufla Municiparity, Rep by its commissioner, Korufla, Jagitar District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226--of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tne affioavit lir"i'^'it "r"itn,^{the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropria.te writ, ord-Jr oi"iiru"r,on more particurarry one in nature of Writ of Mandamus.dectaring in"1.iil"'t? respondent No.2 in trying to demolish the basement existing or".ir," r"ili"rle"irop.rty i.e., rand to an extent of Ac.0.30 sts in sy.No's. qfiie, qs;ti,i,-isiii,'"+it, 4sttuu, 4s,tu, 4sstuu, 4e8/RU, 4'B/RUU. qsail qsani_.it;;il ;i'y:[";p* Sivar, Koru,a Mandat, Jagital District (ord Karimnagar District) wi*,oriiorr-o*ing the due process of raw as arbitrary, iflegar and un-constitutionir ,no "rr"quenry direct the respondent No'2 and its officers not to oemolisrr-inJ oJJ",i""lt raised over the schedure property i_e., tand,o rn "{:ll.9rn9OSO grs i;Si.r.ro,.. gttA,4gilAA, gttE, 497tU. 497tuu' 4s8tu- 4s,tut-t, +salRu,"iii;in'uu, 4s8^,4e8l , situated at Yakeenpur sivar, KorutL rr,rrnJari t"lii"i-rji.irt"t ibfo" xr.irnugar District)

¶15

lA NO:1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section 1s1 .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne pe[iiioii, ih"' ,ign court may be preased to rssue interim directions to the respond"ni i{;.i itsoofficers not to demolish the basement raised over the p-etitioner's "crr"oure^{pro-pertyi.e., rand to an extentof} Ac.0.30 sts in sy.No.s. o6l!1, ytiex isiii,"i6i)u, 4sztuu, 4sytu, 4s,tuu, 4e8lRU, 498/RUU, qsail, qgsirr situaieililillnr* sivar, Koru,a Mandar,

¶17

due^{processof law'} Jaoital District^{(Old Karimnagar District)without adheringto} p"iding disposal of the^{above Writ Petition'}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI RAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION&} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2: SRI PUTTAKRISHNA REODY'} SC FOR MUNICIPALIW

¶21

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶22

ffi*;= Exil

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.4223 OF 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipality appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent No.2.

¶27

2 Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.O.3O guntas in Survey No.497les, 497 /e, 497 la, 497 /4d, 497 ld, 497 l6a, 498 /A, 498/6a,498lar, 498/an:J, 4981i2, 498 / zr, situated at Yakeenpur Sivar, Korutla Mandal, Jagtial District (Old Karimnagar District), within 2"d respondent Municipality on the strength of the Registered Sale Deed Document bearing No.782 of 2017, dated I3.O4.2OL|. According to the petitioner, her vendors constructed a small basement to protect the said land from the land grabbers and also to protect the crop from wild animals. There is no fresh construction; even then, 2"d respondent is trying to demolish

¶28

¶29

¶30

the said basement^{without following the due procedure laid} down under the law.^{Aggrievedby thesaid a<:tion of} respondent No.2,^{petitioner herein Iiled the presc)nt writ} petition.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel^{for respondent No.2 has} placed written instructions,^{wherein it is statedthat he} has receivetl a complaint dated^{O4.O2-2O25 allegingthat} the said Iurd admeasuring^{Ac.O.3O guntas inSurvey} No.497 les,^tlt)7 le,⁴⁹⁷ /a,⁴⁹⁷ /61⁴⁹⁷ ld,⁴⁹⁷ /ea,^498/d, 4g|lea, 498 l,;1;, 498/ars',^{a9al2;, 498/} zr ,^{situ,ated at} Yakeenpur Sivar, Korutla^{Mandal, Jagtial District, onr: Macha} Rajashekar constructed^{the basement illegally.Consequently,} he requested to take action.^{Therefore, to ascertainthe said} facts, 2"d respondent inspected^{the site and found a small} basement \'a s constructed^{long back. The said written} instructions are^{placed on record.}

¶32

A peruLsal of the record^{wouldreveal that there are} disputes betvreen the^{petitionerand said ChityalaLingam} with regard to the subject^{property.Therefore,he has}

¶33

¶34

submitted a cornplaint dated O4.O2.2O25 to respondent

¶35

No.2 to resolve the same.

¶36

As stated, the photographs filed by the petitioner would revea,l that it is a very small basement, about 1 feet. It is not even a construction. It appears the petitioner has constructed the said basement to protect her property, and the standing crop.

¶37

In light of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing 2"d respondent not to demolish the said small basement. However, the petitioner shall not make any construction over the existing basement and shall not obstruct the way.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed. There shall be no order as to cdsts.

¶40

SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development ^^{9.epqltment, TheStateofTelang-qna, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.} 2. The Commislglqr, f!e_[grufl a-Municipatity, Korufl a, .la[itit 6istrtci. 3. One CC to SRt RAJAGO.PAL.LAV-AN TAyl, AOvocate[OFUC]

¶45

one CC to SRt PUTTA KR|SHN4 BEpqy; SC for MU\tCtpALtTy topucl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MUN|C|PAL ADM|N|STRAT|ON & URBAN

¶46

^^{DEVELOPMENT,High Courtfor the State of Tetangana. [OU1} 6. Two CD Copies BN BS \ry

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 310212025

{ ,3t 9TA ,t
(
/ v
2t25 a
0r\ t.i\i\fl
lt
t
il*

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.4223 of 2025

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

d-,A

Katam Rama Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katam Rama Devi 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 Osman Vs The State of Telangana

M. Jayender Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited

Pathlavath Vijay Vs The State of Telangana

Kanneboina Komraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Muthireddy Yadigir Reddy Vs The State of Telangana