M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2026WP/15652/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC writ petition allowed; Tahsildar's notice dated 23.04.2016 seeking title deeds/NOC set aside as defective for not disclosing provision of law; subject-body mismatch; Section 6 APCR Act 1955 jurisdiction plea rejected; Sections 147/149 Fasli land revenue Act; non-mention of provision; Miryalaguda; cinema theatres licence; W.P. No.15652 of 2016; Article 226; disposed without costs; liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal) set aside; Writ Petition disposed of without costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed; respondents Nos.3 and 4 not precluded from initiating proceedings in accordance with law. ¶118

M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶118

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) had jurisdiction or authority to issue the impugned notice, the petitioner contending that by virtue of Section 6 of the APCR Act the Joint Collector is the competent licensing authority and the Tahsildar could not issue such a notice. +1 more

¶109

Court's answer

The petitioner's contention that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the impugned notice by virtue of Section 6 of the APCR Act was not accepted: the very same ground had been raised in earlier W.P.No.42529 of 2015 and was not acceptable.

¶109

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 was held defective: it was issued for the purpose of submitting a report to respondent No.3 without disclosing the source of power or the provision of law under which the Tahsildar was authorised to issue it, and while its subject line alleged exhibition of films without permission, its body demanded NOC, title deeds and other documents.

¶108

Key takeaways

The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader (Revenue) - referring to the provisions under Section 147 of the 1357-Fasli enactment - that respondent No.4 had authority to issue the notice and that mere non-mentioning of the provision of law would not vitiate the proceedings was not accepted, especially since the Commissioner, Miryalaguda Municipality had already issued a similar notice dated 29.10.2015 and the petitioner's explanation filed pursuant to the combined High Court's order dated 30.12.2015 in W.P.No.42529 of 2015 had not been disposed of.ratio¶108
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by respondent No.4 was held liable to be set aside and was accordingly set aside, and the Writ Petition was disposed of (pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed).ratio¶110

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 by M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace (licensee Smt. A. Vasudha Reddy), Miryalguda, and set aside Notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal, on the instructions of the 3rd respondent, calling for title deeds, municipal NOC and other property documents. Held: (i) the notice was defective - it did not disclose the source of power or the provision of law under which it was issued, and its subject line (exhibition of films without permission) did not match its body (demand for NOC/title deeds); (ii) the AGP (Revenue)'s submission that the Tahsildar acted under Section 147 of the 1357-Fasli land revenue enactment and that mere non-mention of the provision would not vitiate proceedings was rejected, notably because the Commissioner, Miryalaguda Municipality had already issued a similar notice on 29.10.2015 on K.Showri's complaint and the explanation filed pursuant to the combined High Court's order dated 30.12.2015 in W.P.No.42529 of 2015 (intra-court appeal W.A.No.49 of 2016, disposed 27.01.2016) remained undisposed; but (iii) the contention that Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 ousted the Tahsildar's jurisdiction - the ground urged in the earlier writ petition - was not accepted. Petition disposed of without costs; liberty left to respondents 3 and 4 to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

i i I ) I ! 1 I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 15652 OF 2016

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace, IVliryalguda - 508 207, Nalgonda District Rep by its Licensee Smt. A. Vasudha Reddy .

¶11

..PETTTTONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary (Home-Cinemas) (General-A) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad - 50O O22

¶14

2 Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda - 508 001

¶15

3 Revenue Divisional Officer, tt/iryalguda - 508 207, Nalgonda District

¶16

4 Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal, I\rliryalguda - 508 2O7 Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the notice calling to submit the documents relating to ownership of the building and NOC obtained from municipality and other documents relating to the property vide Notice No.C/81/1/20'1 5 dated 23-04-20'16 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary

¶19

l.A. No: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. No: 1!301AE2Q]!)

¶20

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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notice No.C/81/1/20'15 dated 23-04-20'16 issued by the 4th Respondent,^pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI K. DURGA PRASAD}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents^{No 1 & 2 : SRI B' SRIDHAR '\ iP FOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondents^{No 3 & 4: MS T' SWETCHA,} '<sup>iP FOR REVENUE The Cour.t made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FO R} THI^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYI)ERABAI)

¶24

TH E HONOT]RAB LE, SIII JUS'I'IC^{E .I.SRE,F],NIVASRAO}

¶25

WRIT PET'ITION No.15652^{of 2016}

¶26

Date:08.01.2026

¶27

Between

¶28

M/s Raghava (R) PictLrre Palac,:

Petitiouer

ANL)

State of Telangana,

rep. by its Secretary^{(floine-Cineruas).}

¶33

(Geueral-A) Dcpar1ment,

¶34

Secretariat, llyderabad-500^{022 and thrcc ottiers}

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This Writ Petition is liled seel.:ing^{the iollowing relicf:-}

¶38

"to issue an apprttpriute Lltril ordcr or dircctittrt ttrorc particularly one in the n(tlurc^{(iLl'rit oJ lluntlttrtttts} declaring tlrc acliotl of tlrc^{4tlt Re.spondentirt isstLirtg lhc} notice callin.g lo submit llrc^{tloctutetisrelolirlgk)} ownership r.tf the building utrl^NOCobtaiircd .fi'ortt tnunicipality and other^{t{ocuntertts rcloling blhc} properD, vitle Notice No.C/8l/l/20I5^{tlured)1.()1 20I6} as illegal, null,^{void undarbilrarv. "}

¶39

.ISIt.J .\ t, t:ht.l 2016

¶40

IJrief lacls of fhe c*sc:

¶41

2.1 . ,,\ccordins. to lhe pctilioncr. orisinall-v ir the vcar 1916 Shakrrntala l'heatt'c was constlLrcl.d bv one Mr.A.[{at^{Litva Reddr.r'r ho} is the [athcL-in-law ol the presenl licensec' Ms.A.^{,/asLrdhal{eddy} S r-rbscqucntll . Raghava T'heatle^$-as constructed irt^{t I r year I 995 after} obtaininq the necessaly pcrmission lrotn thc co I petelit licensing authoril)'. Mr.A.Ragha..'a Reddl' died in thc yr'lr 1001.^,'\1icrhis dcrnise. the theatrc ani liccnse was tr-ansfet lcJ n the rtltue^o1' Mr.A."eera Redcl1., the husband of the plesen: liccnsee. Later. Mr.A.Veera Reddy died in the ycar 2009, and tht', after the license was transferrcd in the narne of Ms.A.Vasudha Reddr and hcr motherin-lau' narnclr, Ms.A.Anasuyamma Ql, Anasuya Der . Sincc then. both the theatres have been rrnder the control ol Ms.A.V r udha Reddv^and her mother-in-larv. Due to valious reasons, disputc:, it'osc alnong tltc family rnembcrs. and a family partition was effecterl in the 1'car 2009 pursuant to an au'ard passed by the L,ok Adalat.

¶42

2.2 The petitioner further averred that ShakLLrl Lla l-heatre was constructed in an cxtent o1' 1728 square yards, an{:i laghava^'fheatre was consttuctcd in an extent of I197 square yards. .nd both theatres togethcr are situated in a total extent of 4086 sq r ire yards. WluL

¶43

¶44

JSI(J \vl, t5552 2016

¶45

things stood thus,^{thc Municipat Commissioner.N'liryalaguda,issueda} notice dated 29.10.201-5.^{based on a complainttodgcd by one K'Showri} on 27.10.2015, alleging^{thatRaghavaand ShakuntalaI heattes were} constructed by encroaching^the irubtic^{road. ['hcr-eaftt-'r' a reminder} notice dated^{2 I . I 2.10 I 5 lr'as also issued.Aggrieved by the said noticcs'} thepetitionerhasfilcdW.P.No.4252gol'20l5arrdthcerstu'hileHigir coufl of Juclicature^{ar I lyclerabadfor thc Statcot Andhra Praceshand} for the State of T'elangana^{(for shorl 'conrbincdHigh Cotrrt')disposed} of the said writ^{pctitionon 30.12.2015. directing the petitionerto} submit relevant^{doctLmentsbelore thc authoritics.challcnging thc said} order, the^{petitioner filed intra court appcal urrle W A No 49 of 2016'} and the same was^{disposedof on 27.01.2016.}

¶46

2.3. It is further^{averredthat pursuantto the order dated 30 t2'2015} in W.P.No.42523^{of 2015, the petitionersubmitted explanationalong} with documents before^{the Municipat Commissioner'Miryataguda'} However, respondent^{Nos.2 and 3 therein havenot passcdany orders} thereafter. While^{things stood thus,respondentNo'3issued another} notice dated 05.01.2016,^{making the very same allegationsas alleged} by the Municipat^{Commissioner, Miryalaguda.in thc notice dated} 29.lO.2Ol5. Agglieved^{by the same. the petitioncrfiled W'P No l 104}

¶47

¶48

¶49

JSR-.I wt, 1i6s2 20 t()

¶50

.,1'l0l(i. ard tllr i;o ihir)c(i J Iiiql-r (,or.r't gra;:lcri irrL: im directiors on 01.01.10 16. SuhscqLrciitlr.. thc .,i,rii priiiion disnrissed as inliuctLrous otr l ./.0.1.1() id

¶51

?.4. DLiring rhc pcnderrcy oi'rlrc- :;;rid \.i:ir i)eiltion. r :spondcni No. 4. at the instancc crr rcsporrrleri[ ]rlo.l. issued tire i,r1:Li,recl noticc datcrl 1i.04.1016. clilcctirrg r[e pelitioner to subntit {locur-,.t tts irrcludilg the No Ot;.lcction⁽ r:r'rrllcete (()fl) ii{)rl the },,i,.rnicipalLr. . titlc tleeds, ancl other doctuu('n1i;. irlscd on an ,illegi:ii conrpiairr Jo<]gecl try one Mr. l\ Iehlh,rol' \ I i. i l1.s 1i;.'. li:c i-rr 1r,.,:r! w r.it p,.,t; I ion.

¶52

l. [{eard ,lr.K.l)urqa^prasad. tcamcd couirsrl i r the petitioner, Mr'.B.Sridhar. learncd Assistant (iovernnrc.rrt plr.i der for IIome appearing fbr responder-rt Nos.I and 2 and VIs..i..! r,etcha. learned Assista.t Go'cmrrcnt Pleader ftrr Rc'enue appearir* lor respo,dent Nos.i and 4

¶53

1. Su brn issions cf learn etl counsel for the Detiti, I ler

¶54

4.1. Learned counsel submifted that Nlt/s.Raghava 1t ) picture l)alace and Shakuntala^'l-hcatr.e \,e ie constructed in the y.eaLs 1995 and 1976 resl)ccti,el,. atter ttbtaining the necessary pernri; ions lronr the contpctent liccnsing atrthot ity under the Andhra t,r rdesh Cinemas

¶55

i i t tI I

¶56

¶57

JSR-^I \P l5a,il 101{,

¶58

(l{eeulation) Act'^{1955(tbr short'APCR} ''\ct')^{As per the Al'(lR Act} and the Rules^{lranlecl thereutrder,befot.e granting a Iicerlsc, tlrc} Iiccnsing^{authorit)is requirecl to obtaill No Oblectit'nCcrtitlcates} (NOC ) tionl thc^{concet'ued departtnetlts'nanlelythc [tcventtc} Authorities,^{local autliority' Fire sat-etydepattment'Mcdicaland} Ilealth^{Departtrent. atrdRoads and Buildings[)eparlnrcntand alstr} c.oncerttcd.jurisclictionat^{SHO.lherefbre'the pctitioneris not recluirccl} lo obtaitt^{anyseparatebuitdirlg pennissiot.teither urldc'r'the prtrvisions} ol thc^{T,Jlangana MunicipalitiesAct orthe Telarlgatra (iraltt} [)anchayats^{Act or urrde-r an1'otherAct. as thc Joint c'ollcctor is the} licensing^{authorir,"- and he is the competentauthority'to grallt} pcrmissiotr^{and isstte required license to exhibit the films in theatrcs'}

¶59

-1.1. llc further submitted^{that,based on similar allegationsas} nlentioned in^{the impugnednotice,the Municipal(-otnnlissioner'} Miryalaguda,^{had earlierissued a notice dated 29'10'20t5Pursuant to} the orders^{passed by the combined High Court dated30'1 l'10 I 5' thc} petitiorlcr^{submitlccl adctaited explanation along s'ith relcvant} documents^{to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda'I{ou'ever'no} orders^{rvercpassed thereafier' He furlher subnrittedthat respondcnt} No.4^{issued the inrpugnednotice da(ed 23 04 20I6 tncrelyon the}

: r I i { I

()

IS Ii.J \rt'15().1 l0l6

¶64

¶65

alleged instruclions ol'responci,..i)i l'(r -l anrl solclv lr.: :,1 on the .rlleged complainr lodrcd h.,, one- .ir.i\lah:r[r(),-rb Ali. rrith]rrt j\c!l tnentioninc tltc provisiorr ol' liru, rrl thc rorrrcc .)l'rrou er und()j r hich such notice rvns issucd

¶66

.1.3. IIc llrtltcl strburittcci that irr lltc sulri,:ct ctrlrrrlr ol.tlre imltugned rtoticc. r'csp.rontl..rt .tr.J lilirrr,.l lltat litc pctiti,, c.r's theatr.cs is crhibiting lllms rr itlroLrL anr ;tcrnri;sion lnil caIlcd l (ru llle petitioner to subrnil an trltlnruttrln. rr lrercars in tltc l;oclv r lhe noticc, the pctilioncr' rras dil-ectcrl to s,rbrnii \r.r Obicr,tion (.r illcirtes oblained liorr tlrc N4Lrn ic ipalit,r . iirlc dcedl. arrd rrtlrcr clticr r r.n1s. He further submitted that lespontlent f.Jo..:l hlr:; ncither the t rrhority nor the jurisdiction to issue. ti.rc irnpLrgned n()tice. in viclv ol ar urrder Section 6 of'thc Al']C[{.Act. Ul'rrcc. thc intpugned notice i:r:d b1, respondent No.,l is liablc- to lre ser asidc.jrrstifiablc on thc groun( ,l' j urisdict ion.

¶67

Submissions of the lea rnetl Assistant Gor r rnment Pleader lbr Reyenuc lirr restrorrdent N os.3 and 4:

¶68

5.I . Ms.-l'.Srlcthe, leanrcd Assistant Gor, r tntent Pleader vchenrcntl,r contcrrded that rcsl-xtrrdcr.rt No.1 had (r I ] issued a show cause notice dircct!ng thc petitioner to suhrlr_i! r9ler,,l I Ccqr\ents and

¶69

¶70

JSI{.'I \j t, 1i652 2r)l(\

¶71

,1:

¶72

responclent^{No :l is enlpoweredto do st'r under Scction149 o1' thc} 'l clangana [-atrti l{cvenuc Act' t i I 7 Fasli^{(hereinaftercalledbrevity} "lll7 l]asli"). Sltc tirrthcr^{subrnittedtliat the pelitioner'withorrt} submitting^{anv explanationto thc sho\cause notice' straightawav had} approached^{rhis Court arrd filed prcscut s'rit petition' challengingthc} said notice.^{s'hichis not permissiblein lau'' She firrther subnrittcd that} nlerc noll-r)lclltioninq^{o1- the provision ol law in the notice rvould rlot} i itiate tltc Procccciit.tgs

¶73

5.1. She^{also subntitted that Section6 of the APCR Act does trot} operatc^{as a bar to thc issuance of a notice whileexercising powels} confemed^{under otherenactments' She further submittedthat the} Court. in an^{eatlier round oflitigation} ln iombincd^High W.P.No..l]5]9^{ol ]015,had already r.ejecteda similarcontentton} raised by^{the petitioner, namely that the MunicipalCommissioner'} Nliryalaguda.^{lacked the authority and jurisdictionto issue sttch a} nolrce

¶74

5.1. In^{supportofher contentionshe rclied upon the iudgmentof the}

¶75

I-lon'ble^{Apex Coufi in R'S'Raghunnth v' State of Karnalakat '}

r tqq.r I St'L^.15

Iil

I I II t I I

Su brrr ission {)f lcurr}cd rtrsi:;tarrt (Joi,ernrn rnt Plcader for Homc lor r1'spontlcnt Nos.l anrl i:

¶81

6.1. Sri I|.Sri,lit.lt-^{!1'111,1'..1i} ,j1'1! lii;li^{(1,,)-l:r,r'|(-'r'rL} il,-'ader sultrtritled that tlrc petitioitil lut:; ttrll ,tictriiijlr,.'rt i5 titLr ir,r'it et l at,it i,rlretIer tltc petili()ner lLrrl s'-rhrrrr{tecl l t' ,,\l\lalrati(rl) ot- ( ( tirntents to thc Municipal⁽ onrnrissi,,rrr;r. ,lirr ti:r,.'lrtlli l-.rrr:,ultnl 1., litc trotice datcd 19. l0,l0l i^()r pLtrslrillt L: Iltc lt.ij,.'r'.. iliss(,(l l)' il L coinbined i Iigh Courl in W.l'.No.ll5-19 o1-l0l j u6.l i1 W... Ng.49 , 0 t O. I Ie further sublnitted tltat thc pctitioncl has aiso tx\t llle( rrly documents, including tlrc liceusc lssue(j l)), tilij ir)luFelerlt tiuthol l .- to dentonstrate whether thc license issried hv the competcnt aurh..itv is valid and subsisting. as on thc (lxlc {):'ljlinLt ot wlit pctitior) r'till date. In the absence of tl)c salrlc. petitioncl is rri;i errrtitletl anr t-lief in thc writ petition ancl lhe sanre i:, iiabl,: to bc dismisst:d

¶82

7. Replv subnris sion ol'le:rrned counsel for thc ,('titioner

¶83

7.1 . I-earned courrsci sLthnti cd that pursuant to (lr order passed by the conrbincd [Jiq]r Clourr irr W.1,.No.4251q ol20l5. ared 30.12.2015. and irt complnucc w itlr thc ordor tiated 17.() I .201t. r: \/.A.No.49 of 2016. the-^{.l)-*i,ti,r'131} ltad :Lrbr,ritrctl a rltraiied e I rianation to the

¶84

¶85

JSR.J wP 15652 2016

¶86

Municipal Cornrnissioncr. Miryalaguda. However, no orders were passed by thc said^{(-onrmissioner} thereafter'. I{e furlher subrnitted that the petitioner's theatre. niLrnclv M/s ltaghava (R) Picture Palace, is in operation as an today. and the license issued by the competent authority undcr the AP( l{ Act is subsisting

¶87

Analvsis:

¶88

Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective pafiies and afier perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that a theatl'e bv name Shakunthala was constructed in the year 1976 in an extent ol 1728 sq. yards. Subsequently, the theatre, namely I\4/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace, was constructed in the year 1995 in an extent of I l9l sq. yards. Since then, thc above said theatres have been running by exhibiting fihns. lt is specifically averred that the motherin-law of Mrs.A.Vasudha lteddy dernolished the Shakuntala theatre

¶89

During tlre course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically stated that tl-re Joint Collector. Nalgonda District, had issued a ts-Fonn license, and the said license is subsisting as on date and the petitioncr theatle is running and exhibiting the films.

¶90

ir)

¶91

lSIi,J wt, Ii6i2 2016

¶92

10.^'fhc lccc,rC ilrtir,;r rer c:rls th:t bascli oir tili: cr 1 ,,r1o1n, Iodged by

¶93

one K.Shor'.,r'i. the \lr.rnicirrul Cor rr: i:r.; ir,ne r. lr'{ir-1lil da Municipality, issued a slltltr, carr:c- notii:c vide⁽ i/ir()f)/[ J)i]i')0 li. r ated 29.10.20 15. directing thc pctitioncr to :,lrt-,i':ril r.1,.rCrnront: r.'latirrr 1o or.vncrship of the buitding ancl btrilcling perrrrission, on rire 3 I:qatron that the petitioner had ctrcroacht-d Lrpon :! frublic :-oacl atr,: constrr,tcted the oinema hall- Agulici r:tl l.r1 the s;ri,l nr,-tir-'c. lh.-r pcl t onL-r- appr-oached thc conrbincd [ [iglr^{.ior-rr.t rnii tlli:ti \Lj.P.NL).'1].i-l(.: rl' l0 15. arrd thc said writ petition \,AS disposcd of on .-10 l2.li I i. drrcctirrq the petitioner to subnrt arr erplanaliori alorrg^.,llilr rcl.: rt documcnts to the said at(horit-v. L)pon rcci--ipt oi sucl.. exolanation. csponderlt Nos.2 and 3 were directed to concluct a ,.ictailcd cnqLrirl,. t r c an applopriate decision. and conrnrtruiciric the sarne to thc pr,.tilio r'r, Aggrieved by the said order, thc petitionel filccl an intra court appe r lfu1c W.A.No.49 of 2016, and the Division lJcnch o1'thc combined llri r Court disposed of the said appeal on 27 .01).016 dirccting the resporr ient No.2 therein not to pafi with an,r.- docurrients placcd on leco|tl by il : lppellant along with his explanation to any pcrson u,ithout lris consr:trr

¶94

1 1. During the course of hearing, leamed counscl rr tlte petitioner. based on inslnrcLions iiLrd inlbrnration liunishecl ], the petitioner,

I I I

./1'

J S t{.J \P 1i652 2016

¶99

specillcally stlt)nritted^{thitt purstrallt to thc ordcr dated 30'1210 l5 and} 27.01.10 l(r^{ol'tlrc cotlhitrccl Ilig.hCourtthepetitionerhassubmittedan} explanaliot.t^{alorlg u itlrlelgr ant docLllllents tothc Municipal} Comrnissioner.^{Miryaluuda. Horvevcr.the said authorityhas not passed} any ordcrs.

¶100

I'lte^{rccord also rcvcals that l'cspolldellt No 3 issueda similar} noticc on^{05.U1.10 I6. rLllcgingthrtt thc petiti('llc'l was runnitlgand} exhibitine^{tllrns in thc absctrceoi Letleultl ot- thc J-Form license' and} also dircctirlg^{tl-rc pctitioncrto submitatr explanationalongwith} documents,^{including buildingconsttuctiortllertnissiou'Aggrievedby} the said notice.^{the petitiorlcrhad approached the combined HighCourt} ahdfilcds'.P.No.tl().}of.l6arrdrvhileadnrittingthesaidwrit petition. the combined^{lligh Cotrltinitialll" glantedan interim direction} on 01.02.2016^{in W.l'.M.P. No l3(r2 ol' l0l6lt is not in dispute that} the said^{u'r'it petition wassubsequcntly dismissed as inlructuous on} 17.04.2018.^{basedon the subrlissionsnracle by learned counsel for the} petitioner. During^{thc pendency ol the said writ petition'respondent} No.4 issued the^{irnpugned noticc datcd 23'04 2016 based on the} instructions of^{respondcnt No ivide l'ctter No'A/2850/2016'dated -} .0i.20 16. [Jpon^{pettrsal of the impugned notice' it revcals that one}

¶101

l\ t.l \! ' li,lr,

¶102

¶103

Mr.Mah[.,9o['r .,1.1i 1111.11,1,.1] r.rrplpt^. j1., i;rfl.;,i: i,,,l.r()g,.: rr () f II e-ging !l)at thc pr'liLi()rr('r'ii;rd t oi'r,-lr it,, i -., j ilrr.cir:lrr_.a tirelrt rr tiht,rrt obr:rinir.tg pcrntission tiorn tlte (.)nccrn!.{l^{,t/iLrnicinelrir} il irrlatiorr ol. the Municipll I{trlc:;.,4.'r.r;:-r1!y1,-,1,,.. f.il1:r-11:11jr:;rt \J,r.-j ti,r ttcC rr-Spoldent No.4 lo c(rncluct arr errtitrir-r ,,rrd ;lrbltit il ,.3pri:.r. [ (, Ite saicl prrrposc, rcspondeut No..1 i:strsd the lrn l-, r rr,rri,,r.i notice tjirccrin, tltc pctitioner to subntil docuntcnts. na,l:l,. rlrc ir(,ri- i:isrrr:,1 t,., tltt. \ Lrrrri:rltalilr. title dcccis. rncl olhc; rlt,cLrrlt.nt' ai:lilrhli ,r,ilh lr,rr. lll :t pu'r iocl ol SL-'\ L-n (lli\ S

¶104

It i:r Iclcl'5111 r.tr r,,:.tit-;it that r.esp.ride,t^.,,).+ issucd the inrpugned noticc :jolej) lirr tlrc l,urpose oi :;rrhr..r tnu a report to resllon(lcnt No..l. rvithout dist:losirig thi) soLlr.rj,,. srl 1,. rr,1 and r.,.ithout n)entionins tlrc prr,vision or' Ilr,', r-rndr:r' rvhicrr hc ,r rs aulrr.iiscci to issr-rc sur:h,()ticc. esrr(.ciarry i, trrc sLrt-jcct r:r',luarn ir r; ,renrionctr that thc pc-litioner tl'reatrc is crhil-'itinr: llrlri ,r irh,rrrr rrr, ircr.nrissic,rr and called rrpc-, thc pctitiorier i() 'l'-lb,ir iui crprrrrati.rr rrhcreas irr trre bodv ol notice it was rrcntioned that thc lrclitionr l. (.onstruct!-(l the thcatre witholrt r:enlission of lVlunicipalitl, arrrl r;r atcrl Municipal Rules bcsirkrs othcr allegatiorrs ancl dircr:r.c(i ll)\r pctit ont,r to ploduce title decds arrd the NitC ilis,-rcri L_.) lirr: Nlrrnicrr r rtv and other

\ \

tsRl wP 15652 2016

docrrnents. Ilcncc. rhis Courr is of tlie vi*v lhat impugned notice issued by rt,spo.clc,t No.l is cle.l'ecri'e onc,^.l.hough the learned Assista,l^(ioverrurent [)leader fbr I{c'cnue r.efcrring the provisions Lrndcr Section 147 ol 1357 lrtrsli subrnittecl thal respondent No..l is har in-q authoritl to issue ,otice a,cr no.-.rcnr.iori.g of the provision or' larv would not vitiare the proceedings. this Court is not inclined to accept the said subrlission especialll the Conrnrissioner, iVliryalaguda Nluricipalirl lrad .issireci a rroricc crarcd r9.r0.1015, with sinrirar allegations. According to the learned counsci lbr thc petirioner, thc petitioner had alreadv submittcd an cxplanation along with rele'ant docu,ents to the said Municiparit'pLrrsuant to the crirecrions issucd by the cornbined High Courl datcd i0.12.1015 in \,.p.No.42529 of 2015 llorvever, the said Municipalitl, has not passed any orders.

¶109

Insolar as the other contcntion raisr'd by thc rearned counsel ror the petitioner that respo.dent No..r has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the impug'ed .otice b' virtue of Scction 6 ol-thc ApCR Act is concerted, the 'cry sanre grourcl w.s raiscd by the petitioner.in earlier W.P.No.42529 of 20 l5 and the same \vas nor acceprable.

¶110

For the loregoing reasons, thc intpugncd notice dated 23.04.2016 issued b1, r.espondenr No.4 is liable ro be set aside and

¶111

¶112

1,1

¶113

l\ lt .l \ i'j l:(,5: l'rl ,

¶114

accordingl) s..^.rsiLle .^{IL is} needlcss^{to obscrr c that thi.} '.^{.Jcr u.ill tltri}

¶115

pLtclLrcle thc risl)ouil..'nt Nos.i and '{ ttom^{initiatirlg l't r:eccling. Irt}

¶116

accitldancc,,r irlr larr.^{ti'so tirel rre aggrie''cd}

¶117

csts

¶118

1. Accordirrqh. thc Writ^{Pctition is disposed ol NL}

¶119

PerdingL ntisccllartcous applications.^{il-anr'. shall} '^{rrtcl closed}

¶120

SD/- U. SUDHA ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶121

//TRUE COPY//

¶122

SECTION OFFICER

¶123

To, 1. The Secretary^{(Home-cinemas)(General-A)Departm:rt secretariat, stateof} Telangana. Hyderabad^{- 500022}

¶124

Z .loint dottecroi & Licensinq^{Authority, Nalgonda DistrictNalqonda - 508 001} 5. Reuenre Divisional^{Office-r,MiryalglOa - SOe207,Nall rnda Disllnct} ;. i;h;ilda lvliryalguda^{Mandal, rULryglgugg - 508 2-07I\ r lgondaDistrict} s. one CC to^{sRl K. oUnCnPRASAD,Advocate[OPl'] )r-} 6. iil CCs to GP FoR^HoME ,High^{Court for the Staterf Telanganaat} Hvderabad . [OUT][OUT]

¶125

Hvderabad . [OUT][OUT]

¶126

z i,iro-ccs to^'cp rbn^{REVENUE,High courtfor the [) ate of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶127

8 Two CD CoPies I),,\N ?za f4')

(;C TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810112026

ORDER

WP.No.15652 of 2016

l
I
I
1E1,.
,J)

.s
s<br>oo1
Ll- <br>.3Y
\ :;/
1
! ,,rtu' .
_- :.,'

¶134

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶135

WITHOUT COSTS

¶136

l) lKz
za ?C.
il

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice No.C/81/1/20'1 5 (as printed) dated 23-04-2016 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal), during pendency of earlier litigation and on the instructions of respondent No.3, calling upon the petitioner to submit documents relating to ownership of the building, NOC from the Municipality, title deeds and other property documents; challenged as illegal, null, void and arbitrary.¶18
Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Miryalguda Mandal · 23-04-2016
Prior proceeding
On a complaint lodged by one K.Showri on 27.10.2015, the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda issued a show cause notice dated 29.10.2015 alleging that Raghava and Shakuntala theatres were constructed by encroaching the public road; a reminder notice followed.¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed W.P.No.42529 of 2015 before the combined High Court; disposed of on 30.12.2015 directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents to the authorities.¶45
Prior proceeding
Challenging the order dated 30.12.2015, the petitioner filed intra-court appeal W.A.No.49 of 2016; disposed of on 27.01.2016.¶45
Prior proceeding
The Division Bench of the combined High Court, disposing of W.A.No.49 of 2016 on 27.01.2016, directed respondent No.2 therein not to part with documents placed on record by the appellant without his consent.¶93
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the orders dated 30.12.2015 and 27.01.2016 of the combined High Court, the petitioner submitted explanation along with documents to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda; no orders were passed.¶99
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 (Revenue Divisional Officer) issued another notice dated 05.01.2016 repeating the very same allegations as in the Municipal Commissioner's notice dated 29.10.2015.¶46
Prior proceeding
The petitioner challenged the 05.01.2016 notice in W.P. No.1104 of 2016; the combined High Court granted an interim direction on 01.02.2016 in W.P.M.P. No.1302 of 2016.¶100
Prior proceeding
The said writ petition (against the 05.01.2016 notice) was subsequently dismissed as infructuous on 17.04.2018 on the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.¶100
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of that writ petition, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 based on the instructions of respondent No.3 (Letter No.A/2850/2016).¶100

M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muddi Basappa Vs The state of Telengana

Vidiyala Chandra Mohan Vs The Public Prosecutor (Telangana)

Bokka Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

V.Narayana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

V. Narayana Reddy Vs State of Telagana

V.Narayan Reddy Vs State of Telangana