ChakkaliBhoompally Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-09. ChakkaliBhoompally Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 3166 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 541 OF 2024 Between: 1. ChakkaliBhoompally Lakshmi, W/o. Late Lingai4 Aged about 69 years, Occ' Dhobi. 2. ChakaliBhoompallyYadagiri, S/o. Late Lingaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. Dhobi 3. ChakaliBhoompallyRamachandram, s/o. Late Lingaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ' Dhobi. 4. ChakaliBhoompallyParushramulu, S/o. Late Lingaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ' Dhobi 5. ChakaliBhoompally Rajasekhar' S/o. Late Lingaiah, Aged 34 years, Occ' Dhobi 6. ChakaliBhoompallyNarsalah, S/o. Late Raja Mallaiah, Aged. 67. - Lears, ,Occ' OtroUi All are Fi/o. H. No. 11-4-66, Bharath Nagar, Siddipet' Siddipet District' ... PETITIONERS AND Secretary' Municipal 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal .
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' Administration and Urban Dbvelopment Road, 2 Siddipet Urban Development Authority, D. No. 18-19-25/1/2/10, By-pass Siddibet 502103. Rep. by its Chairman Near Sri Venkateshwara temple, 3 Siddioet Municioalitv, Door No. 9-3-100, its Commissioner. Siddibet-502103, Dist. Siddipet. Rep. bv 4 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. District, T'S' 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District, T'S' 6 The Tahsildar, SiddipetUrban,siddipet Siddipet District, T'S' 7 The Sub-Registrar, Siddipet Urban, Siddipet, 59 years, Occ' NaravanaraooetRaiaiah, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Aged about 8 H. No. 5-4:43, ParupallyVeedhi, Er,iotirv". i" Vetemiary Hospital' Rlio. District Dh6bidally, Siddipet Town, Siddipet 9. NarayanaragpetMuthaiah, S/o. Late pochaiah, Aged about 61 Business R:/o. H. No. 5-4-42, Parupailyveedhi, Dh6bigaily, SiOat'per Siddipet District. '10.
NarayanaraopetYadaiah, S/o Late pochaiah, Aged about 55 gslness, R:/o. H. No. 5-4-42, pa Q rupa ilyVeedhi, Diobigaily, SidaAei Siddipet District. 1'1 . Narayanaraopet Bhopal, Sio. Rajaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, lvo. H. No. 5-4-43, ParupallyVeed hi, Dhobiga lly, Sidd ip-et Town, District. 12. Narayanaraopetcanesh, Rajaialr, Aged about 59 years, $/9, Occ. Business, F/o. H_No. 5-4-57, ParupaltyVeedhi, Dho6igaily, Siddipet fo*n, District. l3. Vadepalli Vimala, Wo. Chirarijeevuloo, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No. 8-1-2+/i, Subhashhoad, Siddipet Oistriit. - 14. Bhoompally Srinivas, S/o. Parshuramulu, Aged about 42 years, Business, R/o. H. No. 5-3-61/1, Dhobigafli, Siddipet fown,'SiOOiiet-District. 15. NarayanaraopetKalavathi, Wo yadaiah, Aged about 50 years, household, R/o. H. No. 5-4-42, parupailyVee-dhi, Dhobigaily, SU'apei'fown, Siddipet District ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying 'co-urt circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one the nature of a wRlr oF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents grant any permission for any construction in respect of property bearing 1620 admeasuring 0-38 guntas, situated at Siddipet ftlo Municiparity, Urban Mandal, Siddipet District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 't 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal being erected by the Respondents 8 to 15on the landbearing Srrrey admeasuring 0-38 guntas, situated at Siddipet Municipatiiy, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District pending disposal of the petition.
main Wrii IA :2OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 8 to 15 not to make any constructions bearing sy. No. 1620, admeasuring 0-38 guntas, situated at siddipet siddipet Urban Mandal, Siddipet District pending disposal of the Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 '151 Petition under Section 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 Nos. 4 to 7 not to register. transfer or mutate the property in Sy. ltlo. 1620, situated at Siddipet Municipality, Siddipet Urban Mandal, Siddipet Districtpending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SETTY RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRI B.
JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR SIDDIPET MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 to 15: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KTIMAR WRIT PETITION No. 54l OF 2ol24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to grant any permission for any construction in respect of propert5r bearing Survey No. 1620 admeasuring O. 38 gts. situated at Siddipet Municipality, Siddipet Urban Mandal, Siddipet District. 2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Setty Raviteja, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondent Nos. l and 2, Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.
4 to 7 and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos. 8 to 15 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 4. Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel appearing . on behalf of the learned Counsel for petitioner fairly submits that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued restraining an authorit5r from performing its statutory functions as in the facts of the present case directing not to grant any permission for any construction in respect of the property. (See: State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parameshwaran lyerr; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab2; and I. Sangli v. District Registrar, Mahal Registration, OIIice Unit I3).
However, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner would approach the respondent No. 3 authorit5r by submitting a fresh representation bringing to the notice of the authority how the unofficial respondents are seeking for grant of building permission by misrepresenting the facts whereby the authorities can exercise powers con{erred on them under Section 17 6(91 ol the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20t9. 5. t earned Senior Counsel would further submit that on petitioner approaching the respondent authorities and I 2023 SCC Online SC 1O43 , (1994) 3 SCC 569 : (2019 SCC Online Madras 3O016 /' l submitting a fresh representation, the authorities may be directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law in a time bound manner. 6 Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.
3 submits that if rhe petitioner approaches the respondent authorities and submits a representation, the authorities would consider the same in accordance with law and take further action in the matter. 7. Having regard to the submissions made as above, this Court is of the view that in the event of the petitioner approaching the respondent authorities and submitting a fresh representation with atl the relevant details, the respondent No. 3 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said representation. 8. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSlsiANr (:GlsrRAR //TRUE COPY// d. ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. . ' 2. i?! ffi;ftif:&f#ii,"ff,";. :#H#:iltSiHlvf#;l'Uffi u+. '**S:iiq*uli;T"1"1. "" tt$";$$i;ijiiffi :il:i***sWffi$ffi 9. One CC to SRt B. JAGAN 10.
Two CCs to GP FOR tvtr,A DEVELOPMENT. Hioh Co 11. Two CCS to GP FodREV louTl '12. Two CD Cooies BN cLn q-_\- l I I HIGH COURT DATED:0910112024 I I STA 1 6E T€ + o ( ,O ? o 3 0 JA\ 2! 24 o a ORDER * WP. No. 541 of 2024 C O,,-c. r.. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS uf { ,x
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.