Allowed

Sri. Sudarshan v. Municipal Co-operation of Hyderabad.

Telangana HC6 Feb 2008WP/12543/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to prevent demolition of unauthorized structures by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The court directed the respondent to refrain from demolition without following due process of law under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent not to demolish the structures constructed by the petitioner without taking recourse to due process of law under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or Rules framed the

Sri. Sudarshan Vs Municipal Co-operation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12543 OF 2001

¶3

Dated 6th February, 2008

¶4

Between: V.Sudarshan …Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad …Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12543 OF 2001

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

Petitioner, who applied for construction of a building with stilt+4 upper floors, constructed 5th floor and also a penthouse without obtaining permission. When the officials of the respondent-Municipality asked to stop the construction, on an apprehension that they would demolish the structures, petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent not to demolish the structures.

¶11

By the order dated 22-06-2001, in W.P.M.P.No.15573 of 2001, a learned Judge gave a direction to the respondent not to demolish the structures constructed over the property of the petitioner and the petitioner was also directed not to make any further constructions therein.

¶12

In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction unauthorisedly and deviated from the plan submitted and in spite of his being asked not to do, petitioner even without submitting revised plans is proceeding with the construction unauthorisedly, yet it is not able to initiate any action against the petitioner because of the interim order granted against it.

¶13

As the petitioner filed this petition under an apprehension that the building being constructed by him would be demolished by the

¶14

respondent without taking recourse to due process of law, I am disposing of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent not to demolish the structures, being constructed by the petitioner, without taking recourse to due process of law, if it is contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or the Rules framed thereunder. No order as to costs.

¶15

__________________ C.Y.Somayajulu,J Dated 6th February, 2008 vrn

Sri. Sudarshan v. Municipal Co-operation of Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sudarshan v. Municipal Co-operation of Hyderabad.

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

T.v.D.Koteswara Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Varalakshmi, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Bandi Krishnaiah Vs The Grampanchayat Tiruvuru Krishna Dist.

M/s. Radha Industries, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Nanda Kishore Bung, Vs The Sub Collector, Asifabad

Mohd.Munnawar Hussain, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyd