Dismissed

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao v. The Vice-Chairnam

Telangana HC10 Jul 2008WP/3147/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by an agreement holder against the rejection of his layout sanction application. The petitioner's general power of attorney had been cancelled by the vendor, leading the court to hold that he had no legal right to the land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3147 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao Resident of Plot No.157, Deepika, 1st Floor,Srinivasa Bank Colony, Vijayawada.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Vice-Chairnam, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, VUDA Complex, Siriputram, Visakhapatnam

¶10

2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Collectorate, Mahamipeta, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

3 Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature jof writ of mandamus holding that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent bearing proceeding NO.RC.235/2003/PLG/L3, dt.17.11.2007 petitioners application for sanction of layout on petitioness property as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and by simultaneously direction the 1st respondent to sanction the layout petitioners property situated in Sy.No.57P, Vadlapudi Village, Gajuvaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GORTHIMURALIDHAR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

O R D E R:

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed by Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao assailing the action of 1^st respondent-Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in rejecting the application filed by him for sanction of lay out under proceedings No.RC235/2003/PLG/L3, dated 17.11.2007.

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the agreement holder in respect of Ac.118 cts of land situated in Sy.No.57 P Vadlapudi Village, Gajuvaka Mandal, Vishakhapatnam. According to him, he purchased the land from Keta Lakshmi Thalli and paid the sale consideration and he also obtained registered General Power of Attorney dated 6.9.1992. Since the date of purchase, according to him, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land covered under the agreement of sale. He submitted an application for sanction of lay out and the application came to be returned with certain objections.

¶20

1^st respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the GPA executed by Smt.K.Lakshmi Thalli in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by Smt.K.Lakshmi Thalli vide registered document No.142 of 2007, dated 21.9.2007. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right over the land in question.

¶21

Petitioner also filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit various suits in respect of suit land have been detailed. The petitioner asserts in the reply affidavit that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land covered under the agreement of sale.

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 1^st respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land covered under the agreement of sale and therefore 1^st respondent is not justified in rejecting the application on the ground of the petitioner not placing the title

¶24

documents.

¶25

Indisputably the petitioner is only an agreement holder and lot of correspondence went on between him and the vendors and ultimately the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour came to be cancelled. In that view of the matter, 1^st respondent is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for sanction of lay out.

¶26

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

10^th July, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb

¶28

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶29

// TRUE COPY //

¶30

SECTION OFFICER

¶31

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ}

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.3147 OF 2008

¶34

10^TH JULY 2008.

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao v. The Vice-Chairnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao v. The Vice-Chairnam

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

Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Budiga Srujana D/o Venkateswarlu Vs A.P. Board of Secondary Education, rep by its Secretary

P.Narsa Reddy, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep., by

Steel City Shipping Services (P) Limited, a Company Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Smt. Varanasi Surya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a Private Limited Vs The Union of India