Jakkula Chinna Rajanna vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 926 Tel

Item No.19


     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                  AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                    WRIT APPEAL No.36 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.23021 of 2020 filed by him praying inter alia for directing

the respondents No.2 and 3/authorities to stop the alleged illegal and

unauthorised construction being raised by the private respondent No.4

in the common passage and to demolish the said construction raised

thereon.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the

writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner at the stage of

admission itself by observing that the allegations levelled by the

appellant/writ petitioner that the respondent No.4 is raising illegal

construction in the pathway is a claim of violation of easementary

rights, for which the relief would fall under the Easements Act, which

would, at best, be settled in a Civil Court. Granting leave to the

appellant/writ petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for

relief, the writ petition was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner draws the

attention of this Court to a reply to the RTI application submitted by

the appellant/writ petitioner on 16.12.2020, the date on which the

impugned order came to be passed wherein, the Panchayat Secretary,

Adilabad District has stated that no permission has been accorded to

the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat to raise

any construction at the site in question.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner states that

before filing the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted a detailed

representation to the District Panchayat Officer on 30.09.2020

pointing out the unauthorised construction being raised by the

respondent No.4, but no action was taken on the said representation.

5. We have enquired from learned counsel for the respondents

No.1 to 3 that if any action was taken on the said representation. He

concedes that no action was taken on the said representation.

6. It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present appeal with

the direction issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the

representation dated 30.09.2020 submitted by the appellant/writ

petitioner against the purported unauthorised construction being raised

by the respondent No.4.

7. A notice to show cause shall be issued to the respondent No.4

within two weeks calling upon the said respondent to explain her

stand. After granting a hearing to both sides, appropriate orders shall

be passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 under written intimation to

the parties. The order shall be limited to the aspect of raising of

unauthorised construction by the respondent No.4 in the subject

premises. As for the easementary rights claimed by the appellant/writ

petitioner, he has already been granted liberty to seek appropriate civil

remedies against the respondent No.4.

8. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of along with the

pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 23.03.2021 lur