Petitioners removed research on property possession and construction legality. The court disposed of the writ petition at admission, directing parties to seek orders from the Land Grabbing Court before proceeding with construction pending the main case.
None; disposal noted with direction to approach land grabbing court for construction permission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 18384 of 2004
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Cantonment, Secunderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue and order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession in Plot bearing No.102 forming part of the Survey No.74/8 or GLR No.396 admeasuring 453 Sq. yds., or equivalent to 378.75 Sq. mts., situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad cantonment, Hyderabad District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in breach of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with in any manner by demolition, dispossession or otherwise with the Petitioners rights over the said property except
in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for Respondent : G.P. FOR REVENUE
The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition finally at the stage of admission.
The petitioners claims to be owners of property bearing Plot No.102 forming of Survey Nos.74/8 or GLR No.396 admeasuring 453 sq.yards, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad purchased under registered sale deed dated 25.6.1997.
The case of the petitioners is that when the Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment refused to grant construction permission over the above property, they filed W.P.Nos.4735 and 4743 of 1998 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 20.2.1998 with a direction that the petitioners can re-submit their application for construction permission before the Cantonment Board authorities and if any such objection as was earlier taken by the District Collector imposing restrictions on the said survey number, the Cantonment Board shall consider the petitioners stand and pass appropriate orders.
It is stated that petitioners made application to the Cantonment Board on 5.3.2003 and commenced the construction over the property and at this stage, the respondents are interfering with the construction work undertaken by the petitioners.
It is nowhere stated by the petitioners that the Cantonment Board has permitted them to make constructions over the property. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are respondents in a land grabbing case, where Collector initiated proceedings under Land Grabbing Act and in view of pendency of the land grabbing case, the petitioners are not entitled to make constructions.
In view of the same, the respondents are under obligation to issue necessary notice to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners not to make any constructions till the disposal of the land grabbing case. If the petitioners intend to proceed with the
construction, they have to approach the Land Grabbing Court and seek appropriate orders for proceeding with the construction, which will be subject to the result of the Land Grabbing Case.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
A.GOPAL REDDY, J
Date: 8.10.2004
DA
To
Cantonment, Secunderabad.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the right to construct on property is barred by pending land grabbing proceedings.
Whether the respondents were obligated to permit construction before the disposal of the land grabbing case.
Whether the interference by respondents with the petitioners' construction work was legal and constitutional.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishnu Dutt
Smt. Babita Gupta
Government of A.P.
District Collector, Hyderabad District
Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal
Cantonment Board
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
