Dismissed

K.Guruvaiah, v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Feb 2024WP/25501/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, permitted the petitioners to withdraw their writ petition seeking quashing of a municipal order regarding construction permission. The case was disposed of as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition; the petition dismissed as withdrawn. All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Guruvaiah, Vs The Kurnool Municipal Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25501 OF 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Guruvaiah, S/o..K.Shankaraiah, aged about 59 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash nagar, Kurnool.

¶10

K.Chandrakala, W/o.K.Guruvaiah, aged about 54 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash nagar, Kurnool.

¶11

K.Rajesh, K.Guruvaiah, aged about 38 yrs., r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶12

K.Surekha, W/o. K.Rajesh, aged about 34 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakashnagar, Kurnool.

¶13

K.Mahesh, S/o. K.Guruvaiah, aged about 56 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶14

K.Suchetra, W/o.K.Mahesh, aged about 45 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶15

K.jagadeesh, S/o. K.Guruvaiah, aged about 34 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakashnagar, Kurnool.

¶16

K.Rajani, W/o. K.jagadeesh, aged about 31 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶17

...PETITIONERSO

¶18

¶19

1. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, rep. by its Commissioner. 2. The Assistant City Planner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation,^Kurnool.

¶20

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool..

¶21

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division,^Kurnool.

¶22

The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle,^Kurnool.. 7. S.Naseem Khathun, W/o. Rasool Khan, aged about 42 years, Ex-Corporator, r/o. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶23

S.Rasool Khan, S/o. Late S.Abdul Gaffer Khan, aged about 47 years, r/o. H.No.45/169, N.R.Nagar Kurnool.

¶24

S.Ahamadulla Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 26 years, r/o. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶25

lO.S.Azam Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 26 years, r/o. H.No. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶26

II.S.Abdulla Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 24 years, r/o. H.No.45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool

¶27

12.Smt.J.Sailaja Bai W/o Vishnu, aged about 37 years, Occ.Vegetable Vendor, r/o H.No.45/185 - 30 - 1, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool^-518004.

¶28

13.Smt.N.Muntaz, w/o Seeraj, aged about 26 years, Occ.Tailor,^r/o H.No.45/185 - 30 - A, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool - 518 004.

¶29

14.Smt. Jakia w/o Ismail, aged about 32 years, Occ.Main Servant, r/o H.No.45/185 - 32 - A Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool - 518004.

¶30

15.Smt.B.Haseena w/o Tajuddin, aged about 25 years, Occ.House wife, r/o H.No.45/185 - 30 - 2, Narasimh Reddy Nagar, Kurnool^-518004.

¶31

(RR 12 to 15 are impleaded as per the Order of this Court dt.06.09.2023, vide order passed in I.A.1 of 2013 WPMP No.1911 of 2013) 16.B.Venkateswara Reddy S/o B.Venkata Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ Journalism R/o D.no. 40-814-1, Srinivasa Nagar, Kurnool City , Kurnool District. (R16 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt 12.02.2024 vide order passed in I.A.No 01 of 2023)

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 2nd respondent^{dated21.7.2012} as made in Roc No. 8759/10/G1-1 to 3 whereby cancelling the permission accorded for construction of a multistoried complex in S. No. 781/A/2A1A of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District under B.A.No. 321/2004/G1, dt. 16.2.2005 to the Petitioner’s Vendors as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, malafide besides in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to take any coercive measures including the demolition of the building constructed.

¶33

(Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt.22/8/12 in WPMP No.32724/12)

¶34

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 32497 OF 20121

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 21.7.2012ⁱⁿ Roc No. 8759/10/G1-1 to 3 consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein and their swordinates not to take any coercive measures including^{thedemolitionofthe} building in pursuance thereof, pending the disposal^{oftheaboveWP.}

¶36

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WVMP. NO: 3633 OF 2012)

¶37

Between:

¶38

The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, rep. by its Commissioner. 2. The Assistant City Planner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation,^Kurnool.

¶39

AND

¶40

...PETmONER(S)

¶41

K.Guruvaiah, S/o. K.Shankaraiah, aged about 59 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash nagar, Kurnool.

¶42

K.Chandrakala, W/o.K.Guruvaiah, aged about 54 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash nagar, Kurnool.

¶43

K.Rajesh, K.Guruvaiah, aged about 38 yrs., r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar Kurnool.

¶44

K.Surekha, W/o. K.Rajesh, aged about 34 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakashnagar Kurnool.

¶45

K.Mahesh, S/o. K.Guruvaiah, aged about 56 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶46

K.Suchetra, W/o.K.Mahesh, aged about 45 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Naga r, Kurnool.

¶47

¶48

¶49

K.jagadeesh, S/o. K.Guruvaiah, aged about 34 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakashnagar, Kurnool.

¶50

K.Rajani, W/o. K.Guruvaiah, aged about 31 years, r/o. 44/155, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool.

¶51

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool..

¶52

10.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool Division,^Kurnool.

¶53

11.The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.. 12.The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle,^Kurnool..

¶54

13.S.Naseem Khathun, W/o. Rasool Khan, aged about 42 years, Ex-Corporator, r/o. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶55

1. S.Rasool Khan, S/o. Late S.Abdul Gaffer Khan, aged about 47 years, r/o. H.No.45/169, N.R.Nagar Kurnool.

¶56

15.S.Ahamadulla Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 26 years, r/o. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶57

16.S.Azam Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 26 years, r/o. H.No. 45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool.

¶58

17.S.Abdulla Khan, S/o. S.Rasool Khan, aged about 24 years, r/o. H.No.45/169, N.R.Nagar, Kurnool

¶59

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 32497 of 2012 in W.P.No. 25501 of 2012 dt. 22-8-2012, in the interest of justice.

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms. K.V.RAMANI FOR SRI. J U M V PRASAD

¶61

Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶62

Counsel for the Respondents 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : SRI KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY (SC FOR MC RAYAL REGION, NELLORE)

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent No.16 : SRI C HANUMANTHA RAYUDU

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 12 to 15: SRI. BABUJI TENNETI

¶65

The Court made the following lORDER

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶67

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶68

WRIT PETITION No.25501 OF 2012

¶69

Between:

¶70

K.Guruvaiah, S/o K.Shankaraiah, Aged about 59 years, R/o 44/155, Pakash Nagar, Kurnool and seven others.

¶71

... Petitioners

¶72

And

¶73

The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner and fifteen others.

¶74

... Respondents

¶75

Counsel for the petitioners Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad

¶76

Counsel for respondents

¶77

CP for Revenue,

¶78

Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel and

¶79

Sri Ch.Rayudu.

¶80

ORDER

¶81

Ms.K.V.Ramani, learned counsel representing

¶82

Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

¶83

permission to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶84

Permission is accorded.

¶85

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶86

withdrawn. No order as to costs.

¶87

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions^shall stand closed.

¶88

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPU EGISTRAR

¶89

//TRUE COPY//

¶90

SECtTON OFFICER

¶91

To, 1 One CC to SRI. J U M V PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI. BABUJI TENNETI Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV, High^{CourtofAndhra} Pradesh [OUT]

¶92

5 One CC to SRI. KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY ( SC for^MCRAYAL REGION, NELLORE) OPUC]

¶93

1. One CC to SRI C HANUMANTHA RAYUDU Advocate [OPUC]

¶94

Three CD Copies

Madhu

gl '1

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.25501 of 2012

fc)O c;<br>; ( 3:
15 MAR 202^ '
Current Section ■< ■/
C.S'PATCVA^-^^

¶103

1>{

¶104

DISMISSING THE WP AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

K.Guruvaiah, v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Guruvaiah, v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

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

Patnam Subbarayudu Vs the State of Ap

Jalla Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Jp Ram Infra Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velko Infratech Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary to Government Finance Department

L. Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Ramanamma, Vs The State of Andhrapradesh