Paripelli Narayana v. The state of Telangana and another
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-28. Paripelli Narayana v. The state of Telangana and another. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY wRlT PETITION NO. 23919 0F 2020 Between: Paripelli Narayana, S/o. Sayanna, Age: 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, Ryo. H. No. 2- 2-80, New Boyawada, Metpally village and Mandal, District: Karimnagar. ,. ,PETITIONER AND to the l\/unicipal 1 The State of Telangana, Represented its Principal Secretary Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. proper 2 The tvletpally [\/unicipality, Representeid by its Commissioner, Metpally and lr,4andal, Jagtial District. ...
RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No 2 in threatening the petitioner not to proceed with the construction of the building in his plot of land admeasurrng 229. 84 sq. mts. , in Sy. No. 1333/1 , situated at Metpally, while the petitioner is proceeding with his building construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan sanctioned through permit No. 3o131W2012018/0294, dated. 18-2-2019, which is valid till 18-2-2025, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Telangana IVunicipalities Act. Consequently direct the respondent No.
2 not to harass and not disturb in any manner in proceeding with the construction of the building of the petitioner in his plot of land admeasuring 229. 84 sq. mts. , in sy. No. 1333/',l , situated at Metpally, while the petitioner. is proceeding with his building construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan sanctioned through permit No. 3O13M2Ol2O18/0294, dated. 18-2-2019, which is valid till 18-2-2025' lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondent No. 2 not disturb and not intermeddle in any manner in construction of the building by the petitioner in his plot of land admeasuring 229. 84 sq. mts. , in sy. No. '1333/1 , situated at Metpally, while the petitioner is proceeding with his building construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan sanctioned through permit No. 3013M2012018t0294, dated. . 18-2-2019.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV counsel for the Respondent No. 1: cp FoR MUNlctpAL ADMtNtsrRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRt N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S. C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ITI N No. 2 2 2 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for tvlunicipality appearing for respondent No. 2. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though the petitioner is proceeding with the construction of building in his pl0t, admeasuring 229. 84 square meters, in Survey N0. 1333/1 situated at Metpally, in accordance with the sanctioned plan vlde permit No. 3013/W20/2OtBlO294, dated 18. 02. 2019, which is valid till 18. 02.
2025, respondent No. 2 is threatening him not to proceed with the construction. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that the official respondents are not interfering with the constructlon activity undeftaken by the peiltioner and in case if the authorities find any deviation, they will act in accordance with the law. In view of the above, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere wlth the construction activity undertaken by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that in case any deviations are found, the official respondents are entitled to take action, strictly in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall make construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned Plan. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K. SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTIAR //TRUE coPY/l '"V-. -,-- SECTION OFFICER to'',.
State of Telangana' the, Municipal Administration' an" Principal Secretary . to Mandar' Jastiar tr/etparrv proper and , ? f; 3',"J3[iit. |S:15#? :'H,i:fflbRrtni. ip'ritv, District 3. One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate IOPUC] p High court ;. i*; ccsiJe tor uunicipai Administratirin and Urban Development, for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. ffi; aCi;'Sri tt. CraVeen Kum-ar, S. C. For Ir/unicipalities (OPUC) I . ' 6. Two CD CoPies. MP HIGH COURT DATED:2811212020 ttt: s IA 14: . )tL \ ,J ) TJ 0 /JAN 2021 a * * ,: ORDER A C . # WP. No. 23919 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I {\nu
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.