LawSphereX

Sri Manthani Laxman and Another v. State of Telangana and 2 Others

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-11. Sri Manthani Laxman and Another v. State of Telangana and 2 Others. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 22755 OF 2020 Betwee n: 1. Sri lt4anthani Laxman, S/o Dammanna, aged about 48 years Occ, Washerman, 2. Sri Sakali Kishore @ S. N. Gangadhar, S/o Dammanna, aged about 50 years Occ washerma n, Both are R/o Ankapoor Village, Armoor [t4andal and lr/unicipality, O'. tr,. , *,. -1lP#,b*. *. AND 1. State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, [,4unicipal Administration and Urban Development department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Municipal Council, Armoor rep by its Commissioner, Armoor, Nizamabad District. 3. S. Pramod, Sio S. Narayana, Aged about 40 years, R/o H. No. 1-18/5/1, Perkit, Armoor lvlunicipality, Nizamabad 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the final notice vide G1/TP/333/2019 dated 411212019 directing the petitioners to remove construction portion within 24 hours without '13/1 any prima facie evidence without considering the objections dated 112020, without any provision of law, without specifing the construtions as arbitrary and illegal and also violation of the principles of natural Justice and also violative of the Article 14, 16 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the building permissions and plan granted by the Gram Panchayat vide No. 915/2018 dated 311212018 and proc No. 916/2018 dated 311212018 respectively and also contrary to the order passed by the Honourable court in WP No.

6979/2020 daled 291512020 and consequently set aside the same 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 grant stay of atl further proceedings in pursuance of the final notice vide No. G1/Tp/333/2019 dated 411212020 issued by the respondent No. 2 pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDy counsel for Respondent No. 1: Gp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADMTNISTRATTON & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for Respondent No. 3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22755 of 2O2O ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.

2. With their consent, tl-re Writ Petrtion is disposed of at thc stagc of admission itsell, This u'rit petition is iiled questioning thc action of respondent No. 2 in issuing the linerl notice, dated 04. 12. 2O2O, direcring the petitione rs to rcmovc thc constlLrcti(,n portion mentioncd thcrein u,it. l. rin 24 holrrs, u itholrt cvidence l,trintct ,lcrcie and without considering the objections submitted b1' the petitioners on 13. 1 ), . 2020 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that on an earlier occasion, respondent No. 2 has issuetl the notice dated 29. 12. 2019 and the petitioners have challenged same by way of filing W. P. No. 6979 of 2020, and this Court uide order dated 29 . O5. 2O2O, while setting asidc the said notice, has passcd the following order: "Tlte Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed setting cLside the notice datecl 29. 12.

20I 9 cutd giuing libertA to the Municipal authoities to issue notice speciJyitg tlrc ertcrocLchmenls uhich the petiLioners allegedly houe been m. ad. e, tuith a clirection to remoue the some'" furlher hcrein filcd W P ir-o 17919 ol 2O2O Thercafter, respondent No,3 arc makir-rg allcging that lhe petitioners hertrin order and this Court uide illegai/ unauthorised constructions, passed the following interim order: dated 19. lO. 2O2O has I 2 " ln the m-eamuhtle, respond. ent No. 3-the Commissioner. Annoor Municipatitg, shall consicler the representation. , dated 01. 1A. 2020, made bg the pet{lioner against the illegal con. stntctions being made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and pass ftecessary orders, afier putting the petitioner as u. tell as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on notice and affording them an opportunitA of heaing. A copy of the order passed bg respondent No. 3 shall be communicated to the panies. If the allegattons made against respondent Nos.

4 and 5 are found to be true and corect, the official respondents shall take immediate action against tL7em, stnctly in accordance LL)ith the procedure estabLished under the latu. " Lcarncd counsel for thc pctitioners states that rr'ithout considering thc explanation submrtted bl the petitioners on 13. 11. 2O2O, responderlt No. 2 has issucd the impugned final noticc datcd 04. 12. 2O2O, rvhrch is nol onl! ' contrary to the principles of nalural justice but also against the order dated 19. 1O. '2O2O passed by this Court in W. P. No. 17949 of 2020, r,r,herein this Court has directed the official respondents to put the parties on notice and afford them an opportunity of hearing before passing necessary orders. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that the official respondents shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners on 13. 1I. 2O2O and will follow the earlier order dated 19. 'lO. 2O2O passed by this Court in W. P. No.

17949 of 2O2O, and take necessary action strictly in accordance with law. ln vieu. ol the abovc made submissions, the u,rit petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the explanation submittcd br. rhe petitioners on 13. 1 1. 2020 and take necessary action as per the directions issued b1.. this Court on 19. 1O. 2O2O in W. P. No. 17919 ot 2020, b1l aflording an opporrunitv of hearing. Till such time the final orders are passed bv respondent I No. 2, the official respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners. A copy of the order passed shall be communicated to the parties. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development department. State of Telangana Secretarait, Hyderabad. 2.

The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Armoor, Armoor, Nizamabad District. 3. One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 5. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kumar, Standing Counsel for [,4unicipalities(OPUC) (Along With a copy of Order dated 19. 10. 2020 in W. P. No. 17949 of 2020) 6. Two CD Copies IVBC fY \1 HIGH COU AAR,J DATED: 1111212020 1 He s TA e o e d o o 1l DEt2Pg z . , o * * q^, T c Eg ORDER WP. No. 22755 o12020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ut Grk . *+' Evtro }( i\ rr? "\ 13r67 l (stIo\\ c-,\usE NOTICII BtlioRL: AD)llssloN) - HICII CO{-RT IIOR T}IE SI'ATtr OT ]"ELA. \GAI'r\ AT I. IYDI]IlADAI) MONDAY, THE NNETE]JNTH DAY OT OCTOBDIT TwO THOUSAND AN.. D TWEN]Y -- :PRESENT: TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICII A. ABTIISHEI( itEDDY \IG"IT PETITION NOt 17949 OF 2u20 IJetwten: Sadak ? rarnod, S/o Sadak Narayana, .. ,. Petitioner -- ANI-) l.

The State oFTelangana, Rep by the P. ircipal Secreta(y, (Municipal Adni:listsation Depannrenl), Secrela. riat, Hl Jerabad. 2. The Dist ct Collector, Nizamabad Djstrict, Nizamabad. 3. The Commissioner, Annoor lvlunicipality, Arrnoor, Nizamabad DistricL- 4. Manthani I-,axman, S/o Dammarna, oge abor-rt 50 )ears, R/o Anhapoor, Anrocr' )\4anCal, / \lzrmabad Distnct. 5 Sakali l(ishore, Sr'o Dammanna, age about 52 years, R-/o Ankapoor, Armoor N'Iandal, NizarrAbad Districl. .. ,. Iicsl)oDdcnts --- . Wj'llrREAS thc Pctitioner above nanred lhrough llls Advocate SRI. N. SRUSHMAN -onstitLrtion REDbY prescnted this Petirion undcl Arricle 226 ofthe of Iudia pmyinB thar iir the cilcurnstances statcd iD dre alfidavit filed thcr. with, thc lligh Court nray be p,iased to issue a rr;i1, or'dcr, or dilection, more particrrlarly. one ir Ure natlrre ol Writ of Maudarnus declaring the icticn oi the lrd. respondcDt in not lakiug aiy aclio,) on illcgal /unauthorizcd construct.

ion of buildiig treirg constructed on the road by 4th ard 5th Respondeils in survcy Nurnner 459/l and 461 sitralcd at Perkit, Aflnoor Municipali! y as iilegal, arbitLaly, unconstitulional, conlrary to the provisions of The i\,funrcipal Ac! and bad in Iav,, and corsequcntly direct thc l,d Respondcnt ro iai(e llecassary aclio:] by renlovirg lhe ilicglUunaulhorised cor)slnrction on the road b], thc Rcspolralents No. 4 and 5. ; . - -.. ANll WHEREAS the High Cout lrpolt pcrLisi)lg the petitioD an. l affiCavit filcd lierein rird upoD ircaring l. ire arguments of Sri. N. SRUSHll[N REDDY Advocate for rhe Peti:ioncr', directed issue of notice to tile Respondents hcrein to show cause as io why this WRIT 1'['IITiON sho. rlJ rrot bc adnlilted. i. lire Principal Sccrckry, (Ntunicipal AdDliIlistEtlorl Department), State oaTclangana, Secrctariat, Hy. lerabad. . - ? the District Collcctor, Nizarnabad Districl, Nizamabad.. -i. The Commissioner', Armoor Municipality, Arnloor, Nizamabad District. - 4.

lv{aorhani La\nrarl, S/o Darrurann4 R-/o,q. n}apoor, Amroor Mandal, Nizamabad District. - 5. Sal(ali Kishore, S/o Dammanna, R/o Ar (apoor, Armoor \4andal, Nizsmabad District-. are dirccted to show cause oD or beforc 24. 1f2020 to *hiolr'dut" the case stands posted as to lvhy in the circumstances set out in the petition and tbe affidavit fiied therewith (copy enclosed) fiis WPJT PETITION should not be adlniued. I. \ NOr 1 OIr 2020 Petiliou under SeotioD 151 Cl'C praying that in the circumstances stated irl,thc affidavit file<i in s'. ]oporl ofthe \r1it petifion, lie High Court may be pieased to direct lho 3rd. rlspondcnry l. o iminediately stop the illegal/urautoriscd consh'uciiol1 of building on tl)c ro]d bcing corshLrcted by dle Respondents No 4 aud 5 in sufl,ey Nurnnef 459/'l aDd 461 situatcd at l,erkit, r I -1 ....

ql orr lire tllc oftu' ol aborc \\'P No l7949 oi2ll0' pcnding disposai tli"- Au'noor tr'lunici2alit,v i ligh Court, dcl : 'l the folloNirlr'l OI he Court tllade ' NoIlce belorc adrnlssion out perscnal noilc(j for the petitioner is di'ectecl ro take l,earned coulrsei jnto Registry' proofoi service '- 4 and 5. and file ,o . ""ro,. ,U"r',, No" . seeks ti e Municipalitv aipt''til g for Armoor Learned standing Coun"ei to file counter, Pos! on 24 11 2020' Armoor No 3-the Commissioner' respondeot In the meanwhile' made by the dated 01 10'2020' consider the representation' Municipalily, shall Nos 4 bei:e constructions aeain"t tt'" illegal ",. T-' ;";;,t;;;t ::,:,"^:""tent as the petitioner as rvell orders' after putting pass nccessary anc{ 5, and responclenl Nos 4 and 5 on notice and affordil1g them an opportuniry of be hearing. A copy of til€ order passed b-v I es!

)ondent No'3 shall respondent Nos'r'f macle ailainst to the pzu-tic$ lf the ullcgalions cornmullicaLed rcspondents shall take 5 are lound to be true and correcL' the oilicial ancl \\'iIh tno procedufc iu arccordance thcm' st::jr:tlv action agairlst ^mlnccliiiLc Ilu ir i,-,:'t,sl cd ul'ri':r "_ru s,t. ,- I. ;i. ^r;. \ i. ll(sH I.! ! . \ ti:its f. \\ f t t ls I li,\lt 'iIliU[! a)l'\ ( ;t 5 li l0r. \SSIS I',\N'f fliA ol Iciarrgr\tri I)'ii)]iir Sta! c (N'lurricip;'i I ih: Principel Sccretarv' '\C:rIi]iilr'riicrl 'rrll' Scerclarinl, I11'derabad' "- i'riza. "ru". r^p-orLic' , ii;;';,;;;;;"ri;. ro'' ,i):i^^':'u'i';*0,'. , Dis,ric, -. Annoof Nlutxcrp'LrrrX,iii#,;;;:,,rur,",. r. ri. I The CoruDissiouer. sirc,r,,'"aa ll.. ,ici- S'o D':rnm. 'l1tr' ;. . \lr,1Lh$r La\r1un l"- " 1lllY":i::::;,"i,i t,',,,.. 'r.. ,,r n'"" 11,,,. i. . fuo Aniapoor' Armio-'.

,)'^1i::'' ' s- Srk,lli Kisholc, S o Darnrr'iiru1a JILToJ-tvrth copl ol pPtrlron ilno int-t ,o 5 l,v RPAD along "' - RI:DDY Ad'iocire loPucl -- ;;:;;,;;il:N,inusniaex ' ' ol DE',\ co'r',r " $6r ',l'liglr I rw. ccs ro cP FOR MtNICIPAi-A;$-u'n-B"i Jud,canlc at HlJerrbat\' loUTl -'- 8. One sPare coPY Lr"

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.