Disposed

Kankanala Ramabrahmam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/13847/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a property owner against the municipal authority for dereliction of duty regarding unauthorized construction was disposed of. The court directed the authority to consider objections filed by the accused within four weeks before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider objections filed by respondent No.4 within four weeks and pass orders before taking further action.

Kankanala Ramabrahmam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13847 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner who is said to be the owner of plot No.15, bearing House No.7-1203, Hariharnagar, 3^rd Line, Mangamur Road, Ongole, had filed a complaint dated 27.04.2022 before respondent Nos.2 and 3 complaining against the unauthorized construction being made by respondent No.4, in deviation of the building permission granted to him for construction in plot No.16.

¶4

The petitioner has now approached this Court with the complaint that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not taken any action on the complaint given by the petitioner against respondent No.4 in continuing to make unauthorized construction, and the same is a clear dereliction of duty on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are bound to ensure that no unauthorized construction takes place in Ongole.

¶5

Sri M Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that, respondents 2 and 3 have initiated action by issuing a notice dated 06.05.2022 to respondent No.4 under Section 452 of the AP Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 calling upon respondent No.4 to show cause why action should not be taken for not removing the constructions made in deviation of the building permission given to him. He submits that the objections of respondent No.4 are awaited.

¶6

¶7

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting receipt of the notice mentioned above. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that objections within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order,to the show cause notice have been filed on 13.06.2022.

¶8

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the objections dated 13.06.2022 raised by respondent No.4 and pass orders on the said objections within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, before taking any further action. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶11

Date : 13.07.2022 MJA

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.13847 of 2022

¶15

Date : 13.07.2022

¶16

MJA

Kankanala Ramabrahmam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kankanala Ramabrahmam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Busa Krishnarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Minnu Mobiles, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dadi Suri Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veluri Kameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh