Telangana High Court
WP/28074/2008 of K. Jitender Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its on 24 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28074 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Jitender S/o. K. Kishanji, H.No.3-5-3,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28074 of 2008
Between:
1 K. Jitender S/o. K. Kishanji, H.No.3-5-3, Hyderguda Village &Post Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2 K. Kishanji S/o. Late K. Balaji, H.No.3-5-3, Hyderguda Village& Post Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Commissioner,Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
3 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
4 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation,Corporation, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
5 Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer,Chevella Division, Rangareddy District.Chevella Division, Rangareddy District.
6 The Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Rajendra Nagar,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
7 The Chairman, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (formerly HUDA), 6-3-1190, Greenlands, Hyderabad. (formerly HUDA), 6-3-1190, Greenlands, Hyderabad.
8 Sunrise Homes Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Ch. SureshGoudGoud Annapurna Buildings, Street No.11, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 7 in nottaking any action on the representations made by the petitioner to theDistrict Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 16.07.2008, 10.09.2008,06.10.2008, 17.10.2008, 17.10.2008, 03.11.2008, 12.11.2008, 17.11.2008,22.11.2008, 15.12.2008 to the HMDA authorities on 16.07.2008,25.08.2008, 18.09.2008, 22.11.2008 and to the authorities of GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation on 16.07.2008, 06.08.2008, 12.08.2008
as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental Rights warranted underConstitution of India and grant such other relief or reliefs.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VINAY KAMISETTY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners ofthe land in Sy.No.106 and 107 to an extent of Ac.3.11 guntassituated at Upparapalli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, RangaReddy District. While so, the 8[th] respondent has applied forgrant of permission for lay out in certain survey numbers ofUpparapally village for house plots to the official respondents,who in turn, accorded permission to him for the lay out under thename and style ‘Sunrise Villas’. The grievance of the petitionersis that on account of sanctioning of said layout, there is aconversion of existing Nala and the water course is changed fromits original way to the lands of the petitioners and others. Thoughthis fact was brought to the notice of the official respondents,they have not initiated any action and hence, the petitionersapproached this Court and filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel forGreater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and HyderabadMetropolitan Development Authority.
Apparently, the petitioners approached the DeputyCommissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and the District Collector, Ranga
Conclusion
Reddy District and gave number of representations bringing outto the notice of the respondent-authorities, but no action has beeninitiated. When once the said representations are given by thepetitioners stating that there is encroachment of Nala, theauthorities are duty bound to hold an enquiry and decide as towhether there is any encroachments or the permissionaccorded to the 8[th] respondent in the name and style ‘SunriseVillas’ is in accordance with law or not.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with adirection to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to cause a detailed enquiryand decide as to whether the course of the Nala is halted onaccount of the said permission given to the 8[th] respondent. Asthis Court is directing the official respondents to hold an enquiry,the usual notice to the unofficial respondent i.e., 8[th] respondent ishereby dispensed with and it is made clear that beforeconsidering the said representations submitted by thepetitioners, the respondent-authorities shall put the 8[th]respondent on notice and afford him an opportunity of personalhearing and thereafter, pass necessary orders. No costs.
__________
24-12-2008