Telangana High Court
WP/36950/2024 of Vallala Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Telangana on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 36950 oF 2024 Between: Vallala Mahesh Kumar, s/o. Vallala Veerabadram,aged about
HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE [THIRTY FIRST ][DAY ][OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND ][TWENry ][FOUR]
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE [SRI ][JUSTICE ][K.LAKSHMAN]WRIT PETITION NO: 36950[oF ][2024]
Between:
Vallala Mahesh [Kumar, ][s/o. ][Vallala ][Veerabadram,aged ][about 54 ][years,. ][occ ][; ][self-]#pby;;; ffi.H.itrlr.ii-s+, [n.p.noaa, ][Mancherial ][rown ][and District ][- 504 ][208']
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. State of Telangana, [Rep. ][by ][its ][Principal.Secretary,. ][Municipal Administration]"nO [uiu"n ][oeielopmerit ][D6pt., ][Secretariat' ][Hyderabad']"nO [uiu"n ][oeielopmerit ][D6pt., ][Secretariat' ][Hyderabad']
2. The Mancherial [Municipality, Represented ][by ][its Commissioner' Mancherial]Town and District.Town and District.
3. The District Collector, [Mancherial District, Mancherial']
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article [226 ][of the ][constitution ][of ][India ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue any order, [direction or ][writ ][particularly one ][in ][lhe ][nature ][of ][Writ]of MANDAMUS, [under ][Article ][226 ][of constitution ][of ][lndia, declaring ][the ][action ][of]the2ndrespondentininterferingwiththepeacefulpossessionandenjoymentofthe petitioners [property ][bearing ][Municipal H'No ][7-94 ][in ][Block No ][7' ][Gangareddy]Road Area of Mancherial [Town ][and ][District, ][as illegal, arbitrary ][and opposed ][to]principlesofnaturaljusticeandfurtherdirectthe2ndrespondentnottointerferewiththepeacefulpossessionandenjoymentofthepetitionerspropertybearingBlock No.7, Gangareddy [Road ][Area ][of ][Mancherial ][Town]Municipal H.No.7-94 [i]and District [without fo lowing ][the ][due ]Process [of ][law]
l.A.NO:1 OF 2o24
Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased todirect. the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peacefur possession andenjoyment of the petitioners property bearing Municipal H.No 7-94 in Block No.7,Gangareddy Road,Area of Mancheriar rown and Diskict, without foflowing thedue process of law Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s P.SARADA
Coulsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBANDEVELOPMENT
Corinsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRt pUTTA KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.p FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following ORDER
HON'BLE SRT WSTICE K. LAKSHMANUIRIT PETITION No.3695O of 2o.24
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:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development appearing forrespondent No. 1 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenueappearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.
2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absoluteowner and possessor of house bearing No.7-94(old) and7-374(New) in Block No.7, Gangareddy road Area ofMancherial Municipality on the strength of a registered willdeed, dated 26.09.1989 bearing document No.10/1989. Heis in physical possession of the said property. Even then,respondent No.2 is trying to dispossess the petitioner fromthe subject property without following due procedure laiddown under law on the ground of widening of the road as
2
per the rnaster plan. Challenging the said .a.ction ofrespondenl. l\{o.2, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3Wheleas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned StandingCounsel appearing for respondent No.2 has producedwritten instructions of respondent No.2 wherein it is statedthat the p,etitioner herein is the owner of the subjectproperty, he has encroached on the master plan indeviation to the approved building plan obtained by him.Therefore, re,spondent No.2 will follow due procedure of lawwhenever the said lald is required for road widenir:ig or anyother public purpose. The said written instruct;Lons areplaced on record.
4' In the light of the said submissions, the light of the said submissions, light of the said submissions, of the said submissions, the said submissions, said submissions, this writ petitionwrit petitionpetitionis disposed of directing respondent No.2 not to disrpossessthe petitioner from the subject propertjr without t,cllowingdue procedure laid down under law. However, Iibert5r isgranted to respondent No.2 to take action against thepetitioner if he encroach into the public road or if thesubject propert5r is required for any public purpose by duly In the light of the said submissions, the light of the said submissions, light of the said submissions, of the said submissions, the said submissions, said submissions, this writ petitionwrit petitionpetition following the procedure laid down under the TelanganaMunicipalities Act, 2019. There shall be no order as tocosts.Municipalities Act, 2019. There shall be no order as tocosts.
As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
HIGH COUR.T
DATED:31 11212024
ORDERWP.No.36950 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.
*6d\)-w_,,6'5
--,.-.,-''f-,r\t'.)-t+!)S [i, ]ii*,- ffidiirPt sp4lsH[go +]