Dismissed

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., v. Kapra Municipality

Telangana HC4 Feb 2008WP/16432/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging municipal encroachment on land claimed by the petitioner. The High Court, noting the absence of a denied counter-affidavit, restrained the respondent from interfering with the land except through legal acquisition processes.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent not to interfere with the land admeasuring 3600 sq yds in Survey No.705 of Kapra Village except by taking recourse to due process of law.

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., Vs Kapra Municipality — Telangana HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16432 of 2001

¶3

Date: 04.02.2008

¶4

Between: M / s . Gummadi Constructions Limited, rep. by Gummadi Satyanarayana

¶5

……PETITIONER(S)

¶6

A N D

¶7

Kapra Municipality rep. by Commissioner, Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District.

¶8

……RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.16432 of 2001

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent in encroaching into the land admeasuring 3600 sq yds in Survey No.705 of Kapra village said to be belonging to the petitioner for making constructions therein.

¶13

2. On 08.08.2001, when the petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel for respondent Municipality took time for instructions. Thereafter, the case underwent three adjournments. On 24.08.2001 also since the standing counsel took further time, the learned Judge directed the respondent to maintain status quo existing as on that day in respect of the land bearing Survey No.705 admeasuring 3600 sq. yards situated at Kapra village. As the respondent failed to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted, the writ petition was admitted on 05.09.2001 and the interim order passed on 24.08.2001 was continued till further orders.

¶14

3. Though the writ petition is of the year 2001, the respondent did not choose to file counter affidavit till today.

¶15

4. Since it is well known that property belonging to an individual cannot be used for public purposes, unless it is acquired by the authority concerned under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or some other provisions of law, and since the averment in the

¶16

affidavit filed in support of the petition that the land admeasuring 3600 sq. yds in Survey No.705 of Kapra village belongs to the petitioner is not denied or disputed by the respondent by filing counter affidavit,

¶17

I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent not to interfere with the land admeasuring 3600 sq. yds in Survey No.705 of Kapra Village said to be belonging to the petitioner, except by taking recourse to due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶18

-------------04.02.2008

¶19

Cvrk

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., v. Kapra Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Gummadi Constructions Ltd., v. Kapra Municipality

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

Lakshmi Devi Complex, Vs a.P.State Financial Corporation

Ginne Saraswathi Vs The District Collector

K.Subash, (A2) Vs The State of A.P.

G.S.R. Durga Prasad, S/o late Rama rao Vs The Commissioner, Narasapuram Municipality

Thokapallygram Panchyat Vs Sec.Panchyat Raj Dept and 5 Ors.

Nagubandi Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Narasaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police