Allowed

Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC19 Feb 2008WP/32884/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that government title claims cannot preclude processing of construction applications. The petitioner was directed to consider the case upon undertaking to yield equities if the claim is validated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's construction application provided he submits an undertaking to waive any equitable claims if the Government title is upheld.

Rajesh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 32884 of 1998

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Chander Bhan, R/o.7-1-215/D/1, Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 16.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section

¶12

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Collector, Hyderabad. Impleaded as permitted by Hon'ble Court 25-11-98.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

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 a Writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring that the impugned action of the respondents in proceedings bearing No.482/ TP 7/CCP/97-98 1904, dated 5.8.1998 are wholly erroneous, arbitrary and ultravires the powers of the respondents and consequently declare the same as unenforceable and forbear the respondents from rejecting the petitioner's buildings application on the said ground and consequently direct application on the said ground and consequently direct the respondents to consider and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MPAPA REDDY

¶17

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

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.32884 OF 1998

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondents.

¶23

2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not processing the application for construction submitted by him, in view of the letter of the Collector dated 10.09.1997 requesting the respondents not to process any application for construction in the land in Sy.No.74/9, which is registered as a Government land, petitioner filed this petition.

¶24

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the respondents did not process the application of another plot owner to make construction in the same survey number, he filed W.P.No.27218 of 1996 and after the Court granted an injunction in WPMP No.33626 of 1996 on 19.12.1996, he completed the construction of compound wall and sought permission to further develop the land. It is his contention that the action of the respondents in not processing the application is not proper in view of the ratio in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE

¶25

LIMITED, V/s. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD^[1] , S.KAMALA GIRI V/s. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD (W.P. NO.274 OF 2007, dated 15.11.2007) and SMT.S.PADMA V/s. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD (W.P. NO.16708 OF 2002, dated 16.09.2002).

¶26

4. In view of the ratio in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED’s case (1 supra) merely because the Government claims title to the property, which the petitioner intends to develop, respondents cannot stop processing the application. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application of the

¶27

petitioner provided he submits an undertaking to the effect that in the event of any court of law in any proceeding to which he is made as a party, holds that the property in question belongs to the Government, he i.e. the petitioner shall not claim any equities for the construction made by him.

¶28

5. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

-----------------------------------JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶30

19^th FEBRUARY, 2008 PGS

¶31

¶32

1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶34

W.P.NO.32884 OF 1998

¶35

19^TH FEBRUARY, 2008

¶36

[1] 2001(3) ALD 600

Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Atmananda Rddy, Vs State of A.P.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vs Govt of A.P.

M/s Sri Suryalakshmi Industries, Vs a.P.Industrial Infrastructures Corporation

M/s. Bata India Limited, Vs The M.C.H.

M/S.Kowtha Steel Products Secbad Vs the Eo. Gram Panchayat Vijayawada

Vasam Kotayya Vs S.Rayavaram Gram Panchayat