Disposed

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, v. Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner

Telangana HC1 Jul 2008WP/25918/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging non-payment of compensation and demand of final charges for building permission, the High Court directed the petitioner to submit a revised plan without availing specific government order benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit revised building plan without availing benefits under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998. Writ petition disposed.

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25918 of 2006

¶5

Between:

¶6

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, R/o Plot No. 1217/A, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Chief City Planner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying Rs.80,00,000/- towards compensation for acquiring the petitioner's property to an extent of 156 sq. yrds. in Plot No. 1217/A, Road No. 36 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and demanding Rs.29,77,012/- towards final charges for granting building construction permission to the petitioner for the left over property as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and bye laws made there under and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation after deducting the charges as demanded by the respondents and also direct the respondents to sanction the building permit and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.M.M.CHARY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by Lalit Kumar Gupta with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying Rs.80,00,000/- for acquiring the petitioner’s property to an extent of 156 sq. yards in Plot No.1217/A, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and demanding Rs.29,77,012/- towards final charges for granting building construction permission to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

2. The petitioner is the owner of 1862 sq. yards situated at Plot No.1217/A, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. In the year 2005, when the respondents sought to interfere with his possession over the site, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22198 of 2005. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 07.10.2005 directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property unless due process under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, is followed. The respondents took possession of the property of the petitioner to an extent of 156 sq. yards without paying any compensation. He submitted an application for construction of the building over the left over site. The respondentsCorporation directed him to pay Rs.29,77,012/- under various heads. Hence, this writ petition with a prayer stated supra.

¶18

3. 1^st respondent filed counter-affidavit. K.V.Ranga Raju, Assistant City Planner, Circle No.X, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner himself surrendered the site required for road widening through private negotiations. It is further stated that the respondents will take action if the petitioner withdraws his building permission application and files a fresh application without availing the benefits as provided under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998 and that the respondents would also consider the payment of compensation to the site acquired by them for road widening according to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act/Land Acquisition Act.

¶19

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation.

¶20

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never gave consent as provided under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and he did not avail the benefit under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998 and therefore, the building permission application filed by him is to be considered without insisting the petitioner to deposit the amounts demanded in Letter No.1217/A/ACP5/TPS/MCH/05, dated 12.01.2006.

¶21

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentsCorporation submits that the plan submitted by the petitioner includes the availment of benefit as provided under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998 and if the petitioner withdraws the building permission application and files a fresh application without availment of the benefit as provided under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998, the respondents will consider the payment of compensation to the site of the petitioner acquired by them in road widening according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶22

7. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit a revised plan without availing the benefits provided under G.O.Ms.483 MA, dated 24.08.1998 and thereupon the respondents have to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶23

8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

_________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶25

Date:01^st July, 2008.

¶26

cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, v. Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, v. Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by 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

Syed Najmul Hasan Razvi Vs G.H.M.C

P.Vaman Rao Vs The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad

Madina Education and Welfare Society, Vs The Secretary, Municipal Administration

J. Chandraiah Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, Vs The National Council For Teacher Education

R. Venkata Ramana, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation