Disposed

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2019WP/17201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding refusal of building permission. It granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation clarifying application details, directing the second respondent to decide within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make a fresh representation within two weeks; the 2nd respondent to consider it and pass an order within six weeks; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.17201 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 2^nd respondent has not been granting building permission in respect of the petitioner’s plot Nos.32 and 33 part covered by approved lay out T.P.No.30/1982 on the ground that the location of petitioner’s plot is changed in revised plan T.P.No.22/1985 despite the fact that the revised plan does not affect petitioner’s plot and affects only plot No.1 in the lay out which was already clarified by the petitioner through his representation.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for 1^st respondent and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent.

¶5

Learned standing counsel would submit that the copy of the receipt filed by the petitioner along with the material papers is in fact not the receipt or the acknowledgement relating to the submission of the online application for approval of the plan and on the other hand, the said receipt is only in respect of the payment of property tax and thus, he would submit that no document is filed in the Court showing that the petitioner made an online application for approval of the plan.

¶6

Rebutting the same, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that on the top of the receipt (P3), he mentioned the online building application number as “BA No.TEMP/1060/0241/B/K/KD/RA/2019” and this number relates to the acknowledgment for the online

¶7

¶8

application submitted by the petitioner for approval of the house plan. He would further submit that when he was orally informed by the municipal authorities that his application could not be considered because in the revised plan, the location of the petitioner’s plot was changed, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.07.2019 clarifying the said aspect.

¶9

In order to avoid the controversy relating to the submission of the application and further delay, learned counsel for petitioner agreed to submit a fresh representation citing the previous application particulars to the 2^nd respondent and considering the same, an order may be passed expeditiously.

¶10

Finding reasonability in the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation citing the earlier application number and other facts within two weeks from the date of this order. In such an event, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with Rules, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner and communicate the order to the petitioner.

¶11

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶13

12.11.2019 SS

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others Vs v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and Ano

Chittoor Sukumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guggilam Bala Subrahmanyam Guptha, Vs State of Ap

Kasina Veera Bhadra Rama Prasad Vs Rudraraju Rajesh Varma

Jorige Hima Bindu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Haseen, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh