Allowed

Lalitha Nagar Welfare Association, v. Commissioner

Telangana HC12 Feb 2008WP/11624/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a Welfare Association challenging the Municipal Corporation's issuance of building permits for construction in land reserved for a public park and road. In the absence of a counter-affidavit, the Court accepted the petitioner's claims and set aside the permits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the building permits issued by the Corporation are set aside.

Lalitha Nagar Welfare Association, Vs Commissioner — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11624 OF 2000

¶3

DATED: 22.08.2005

¶4

Between: Lalitha Nagar Welfare Association, Lalitha Nagar, Hyderabad. AND

¶5

… PETITIONER

¶6

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad & 4 others. … RESPONDENTS

¶7

ORAL ORDER:-

¶8

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent – Municipal Corporation in issuing building permit Nos.350/37 dt.09.10.1991, 350/38, dated 09.10.1991 and 138/72 dated 20.06.2000 in favour of Sri N.P. Sesha Sai and Sri N.S.V. Subba Rao for construction of residential buildings in the land in T.S.Nos.14/1 and 15, ward 144, Block ‘N” reserved for public park and public road, situated in the midst of Lalithanagar colony, opposite to Jamai Osmania Railway Station, Hyderabad, abutting plot Nos.8, 7, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 146, 147, 157, 158,

¶9

167, 174 and 175.

¶10

The petitioner is the Lalithanagar Welfare Association and the layout of the said Lalithanagar was approved by the Deputy Commissioner of MCH, Secunderabad on 14.02.1970. An extent of Acs.20.00 with 190 residential plots were developed as per the said layout. Since the land fell in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Secunderabad and Hyderabad, both the authorities have granted the layout to the petitioner - Association in the year 1974. Accordingly, it was developed by the Association along with others for the purpose of construction of houses, leaving space for roads in an extent of 50 feet for public park in T.S.No.15 and requested the Corporation to develop it as a park for public purpose in confirmation with the approved layout, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner – Association made another representation, dated 04.02.2000, and the same was not considered, but on the other hand, the Corporation has granted the building permission to the above said persons and a complaint was made on 02.06.2000 which was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner – Association constrained to approach this Court and filed the present writ petition.

¶11

Though the matter is pending from 2000, the respondents have not chosen to file their counter-affidavit. At the time of admission, this Court directed to maintain status quo existing as on that day.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when no counteraffidavit is filed contradicting the averments made in the affidavit, I consider it appropriate that the averments made in the writ petition are true and correct.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the building permits issued by the Corporation are set aside.

¶14

22.08.2005

¶15

Lalitha Nagar Welfare Association, v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha Nagar Welfare Association, v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Gopi Krishna Vs Dist.Panchayat Officer Karmnagar

S.Naraayanamma Wanaparthy Mahabubnagar Vs a.P.S.Fin.Cor. MAHABUBNAGARAND2 Ors.

P. Parameshwar Reddy Vs A.P.S.F.C. Mbnr Branch and 2 Ors.

B.Manik, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Commissioner

G. Ramakrishna Raju S/o. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Ethakota Grama Panchayat, rep., by its Secretary