Kolan Rajavardhan Reddy v. The State Of Telangana And Another

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19642 OF 2022 Between:

Kolan RajavarQfan Rgddy, S/o. K. Malta Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ ; Buslness, R/o.H.No.1-2014, Gurramguda village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Badangpet Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Aravinda Nagar Colony, Residents Welfare Associatipn, Regd No.73112020 Having its Office at 4BltWlP Gaddam's Enclave, Phase - ll, Guramguda Villag_e, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District rep by its Banavath Deepla, S/o. Banavath Surya, aged 37 years, Occ:Employe6, R/o.H.No.1-32, Naidupalem, Hajarigudem, Perur, Nalgonda District. (R - 3 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 08-09-2022 in l.A.No.2 oI 2022) ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe 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 declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interferlng and causing damage to the house property of the petitioner bearing No.3-148144111 constructed on plot No.

441lA, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 93, 94 and 95 at Gurramguda H/o. Nadergula village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law and without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above house property without notice and opportunity and without following due process of law.

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 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 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the house property bearing No.3-148144111 constructed on plot No. 441lA, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 93, 94 and g5 at Gurramguda H/o. Nadergula village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the implead Respondent No.3 : SRI.MOHAMMED ZUBAIL AKRAM The Court made the following ORDER

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.19642 of 2022 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: " to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in interfering and causing damage to the house property ofthe petitioner bearing No.3-148/441/l constructed on plotNo.44llA, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Sy. No' 93,94 and 95 at Gurramguda lUo.Nadergula village, Balapur, Mandal Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law and without giving notice and opportunity to the petirioner, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above house property without notice and opportunity and without lollowing due process of law... " 2.

Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent is interfering and causing damage to the petitioner's subject property. He submits that the petitioner has purchased the property way of a registered agreement of sale-cumGeneral Power of Attorney dated 23.08.2018 from one B.Srinivas Reddy. The vendor of the petitioner has purchased the property from one A.Venkat Reddy and others on24.04.2017. The petitioner is in possession of the property being the absolute owner. The 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation, without following due process of law, came to the property of the petitioner on 04.04.2022 and demolished the part of the property and has been trying to remove the total house, without giving any notice and opportunity and also

without following due process of law. He further submits that the petitioner has filed o.s.No.542 of 2o2l on the lile of the Junior civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent and the said suit is pending ad_judication. 3.

When the matter came up on 19.04.2022, this Court has granted an order of status quo and directed the 2nd respondent to file counter-affi davit.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing counsel, submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that in the suit, he has filed I.A. seeking interim injunction and the said I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.12.2021. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He submits that having filed sirit and having failed to get the injunction, the petitioner has approached this court. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.

5.

Sri Mohamm ed Zubail Akram, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the petitioner is trying to make construction in the

I park and is trying to occupy the open space. The petitioner has already filed a suit against the 2"d respondent and he was unsuccessful in getting injunction order.

6.

The petitioner has come up before this Court suppressing the fact that I.A. seeking interim inj unction is dismissed, which is a material fact, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the course of law for a ride and for granted. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere 7 .

In the facts and circumstances and for suppressing the material fact and coming up before this Court, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. j I SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r.- SECTION OFFICER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI.M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

3. One CC to SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC]

4. One CC to SRI.MOHAMMED ZUBAIL AKRAM, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

6. One spare copy s'A' x$K

HIGH COURT DATED:0810912022 I o^\ 1Yi 4 r41< I I I \i 2$ SEP 2m o ,\

ORDER

WP.No.19642 of 2022 s !':

I DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.