Allowed

D.Sukumar, v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC13 Apr 2005WP/6471/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court applied a Division Bench precedent to set aside a municipal corporation order rejecting a building application due to a pending land grabbing case, directing fresh consideration subject to an undertaking for removal if the land is later recovered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.02.2005 set aside; writ petition disposed of with direction to consider building application afresh subject to petitioner furnishing specific undertaking.

D.Sukumar, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6471 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.Sukumar, S/o. Sri Dharmalingam, Plot.No.4, Ramgopal Enclave, Hashmathpet, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road,

¶11

Commissioner.

¶12

2 Chief City Planner, M.C.H,BRKR Buildings,

¶13

Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring that the impugned proceedings of the Second Respondent bearing No.193/TP/MCH/SD/2005 dt. 7.2.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the powers of the Respondents under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently declare the same as unenforceable and that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his building application subject to condition as imposed in Annexure IV order of this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN

¶17

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶20

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the respondent Corporation dated 07-02-2005 where under the request of the petitioner for construction of ground, first and second floor at Plot No.51 in Sy.No.74/9 of East Marredpally, Secunderabad was rejected on the ground that L.G.C.No.167/97 filed by the Government against some of the illegal encroachers in respect of the land in question is pending before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.

¶21

It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having considered an identical issue, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.61 of 2000 permitted the appellant therein to construct the building at his own cost and risk subject to furnishing an undertaking to that effect. It is also brought to my notice that several other writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.61 of 2000.

¶22

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation does not dispute the said fact.

¶23

Accordingly, following the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.61 of 2000 the impugned order dated 07-02-2005 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the building application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the respondents stating that in case L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 pending on the file of the Special Court is decided in favour of the Government, he shall remove the structures without claiming any equitable relief. It is made clear that any such constructions made by the petitioner are at his own cost and risk.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

G. ROHINI, J

¶26

Dated: 13-04-2005

¶27

LSK

¶28

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶29

¶30

1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Chief City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶31

3 Two C.D. Copies.

D.Sukumar, v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sukumar, v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Venkat Rao, Vs The Divisional Forest officer

Krishnaveni All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers Vs The District Level Committee for Sand

Shettypally Balaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao Vs The District Collector and Executive Magistrate

Lakshmi Kantha, Vs The Commissioner

Gurrala Narasaiah, Vs The District Collector, Medak District