Disposed

Smt.Kusuma v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC14 Mar 2005WP/9739/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions under Article 226. The petitioner complained that the second respondent had encroached on public roads and the first respondent failed to act on previous complaints. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation and take action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 9.7.2002 regarding alleged encroachment and take necessary action within four weeks.

Smt.Kusuma Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 9739 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.P.Kusuma W/o Nagaraju H.No.I.S.No.19, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

¶9

.... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

¶12

lower tank Bund Road, Hyd

¶13

2 S.Hanumantha Rao S/o S.Venkaiah

¶14

6-1-495, Khairatabad, Hyd

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to stop the construction activity by the Respondent No.2 on the Public Roads in the Approved layout plan in File No.850/TP/69, dt. 8/04/1969, of Women's Co-operative Housing society limited, in survey No. 403/8, 403/9, 403/10 and 403/11 sheikpet Village , Yousufguda, Hyderabad pursuant to the petitioners' Complainant dt. 9/07/2002, and 28/05/2004, and pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.S.NANDA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1.: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that second respondent having encroached the public road made some constructions and that first respondent in spite of a complaint given by him on 9.7.2002 bringing to his notice about the said encroachment, is not taking any action against the second respondent.

¶22

2. In the circumstances stated, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.7.2002 with regard to encroachment allegedly made by the second respondent, and take necessary action thereon as per law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J

¶24

Dated : 14.3.2005

¶25

Note:

¶26

Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) RAR

¶27

¶28

1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad lower tank Bund Road, Hyd

¶29

2 2 CD copies.

Smt.Kusuma v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kusuma v. The Commissioner

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

C. Balakrishna Vs Tirupathi Urban Development Authority

C. Balakrishna Vs District Collector

V.Srinivasa Kumar, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

A. Janga Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shanker Goud Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Shakeera, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer