Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 7457
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
M. Naveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/2029/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, Standing Counsel
Authorities must promptly address property disputes involving public utilities and coordinate removal of obstructions as per ownership claims.
Headnote:In this case, the Court considered the substantive duty of the Municipality and Electricity Department in relation to the obstruction caused by an electric pole on the petitioner's property. The petitioner asserted ownership of the property under a registered sale deed. The Court allowed the petitioner to seek formal resolution by submitting a representation to the respective authorities to coordinate the removal of the pole within a specified timeframe. The underlying issues involved the procedural obligations of the municipality and electric service providers in addressing property disputes and managing public utilities effectively.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims ownership of property obstructed by an electric pole. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents suggest a procedural approach to resolve the obstruction. (Para 3) |
| 3. court allows petitioner to file representation for removal of the pole. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Perused the record.
2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.3-103-4/4 (PTIN/Assessment No.2000005227) on part of plot No.14 in Sy.No.114/2, admeasuring 100 Sq.yds, situated at Boduppall Village within Boduppal Municipal Corporation, under registered sale deed bearing document No.7253 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023. Even then, respondent No.2 erected Electric pole in the property belongs to the petitioner. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs. He has made his request to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to remove the said pole. They have not considered it. Challenging the said action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has to make an application to Boduppal Municipality as well as the Electricity Department and they will coordinate with each other to remove the said electric pole erect in other alternative place.
4. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation to the Boduppal Municipality represented by its Commissioner and the Electricity Department with a request to remove the said electric pole. On submitting such representation, they shall consider the same and remove the said electric pole within two (2) weeks thereafter. They shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
