Telangana High Court
WP/36831/2024 of Chidaraboina Venugopal Rao Vs The 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 TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 36831 OF 2024 Between: Chidaraboina Venugopal Rao, S/o Chindaraboyina
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 36831 OF 2024
Between:
Chidaraboina Venugopal Rao, S/o Chindaraboyina Venkateshwadu, Age 36 years,Occ: Farmer, Resident of H.No.11-33, Gajwel Mandal, Pragnapur, Medak,Telangana - 50231 1.Occ: Farmer, Resident of H.No.11-33, Gajwel Mandal, Pragnapur, Medak,Telangana - 50231 1.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, MunicipalAdministration, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.Administration, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner Municipality, Gajwel - Pragnapur Division Office, Gajwel,District Siddipet, Telangana.District Siddipet, Telangana.
3. Podicheti Vklyasagar Rao, S/o Prasad Rao, Age 45 years, Occ. Farmer, Rl/oAmbedkar Nagar, Skidipet Town and District.Ambedkar Nagar, Skidipet Town and District.
...,.RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondent No.2and his officials for not demolishing constructed in suttey 2241611 situated atPregnapur Village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet without obtaining any permission isillegal, arbitrary, contrary to the seftled principles of law and violative of provisions'of the Municipality Act.
.\
Page 1 of 4
.A.NO:1 OF 2024
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 respondent no 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated511212024 pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s M.SIRISHA RANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : --
The Court made the following ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAISHMAN1IIRIT PETITION No.36831 of 2o24
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development appearing [for]respondent No. 1 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learnedstanding counsel appearing for respondent No.2. [Perused]the record.
2. In view of the nature of relief sought by [the]petitioner, this Writ Petition isdisposed of at theadmission stage dispensing with notice to [respondent]No.3
3. The petitioner herein is resident of [Pragnapur,]
Gajwel Mandal, Medak district. [Respondent ][No.3 ][is]making construction lnagricultural land withoutobtaining converslon proceedings and [also ][permission]from respondent No.2. Therefore, [the ]said [construction ][is]
un-authorizecl construction. Therefore, petitioner has
Page 2 of 4
submitted a representation, dated 05.12.2024 torespondent No.2 with a request to take action againstrespondent No.3. Despite receiving and acknowledgingthe said representation, respondent No.2 did not actupon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction ofrespondent No.2, petitioner filed the present writ petition.4. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standingcounsel appearing for respondent No.2, has producedwritten instructions stating that respondent No.3 is theowner of land in Sy.No.224l6l/1, Pragnapur village.Third parties / villagers of the said village makingconstruction of a temple by encroaching into ttre subjectIand. Thereforc, he has hled a suit vide O.S.No.3O2 of2024. Learned trial Court also granted injunction1nI.A.No.533 of 2024 in O.S.No.302 of 2024. The said suitis pending ancl said injunction order is subsisting. On thecomplaint lodged by respondent No.3, Police, GajwelPolice Station have also registered a case.Therefore, To KL,JW.P.No.36831 of 2024
+
J
according to respondent No.2, respondent No.3 is not proceeding with the construction. Therefore, the questionof obtaining permission from respondent No.2 does notarise. The said written instructions along withphotographs a,re placed on record.
5. In view of the said submission, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought byhim in the present writ petition. The allegations made byhim in representation dated 05.12.2024 are factuallyincorrect. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to bedismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
Sd/. T. JAYREEASSISTANT [R]TRARSECTIONFICER
//TRUE COPY//
Page 3 of 4
1. Two CCs to GP [for ][Municipal Administration ][and ][Urban Development' ][High]Court for the State [of ][Telangana at Hyderabad' ][[OUT]]Court for the State [of ][Telangana at Hyderabad' ][[OUT]]
2. One CC to M/s. [M.SIRISHA RANI, Advocate ][OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI [PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, ][Advocate ][(OPUC)]
4. Two CD CoPies
HIGH COURT
DATED:3111212024
ORDER'1 HE [s;?A]14:WP.No.36831 of 2024/':,s.t0 7 r'lA,i 2025-...,1,,r' ._ r.... -_ ^..,r'\./.
DISMISSING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…