Disposed

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Feb 2009WP/1866/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the non-completion of a rehabilitation project arbitrary and illegal, directing expeditious construction. The court disposed of the petition but granted liberty for fresh proceedings regarding allegations of ineligible occupation of constructed houses.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings regarding ineligible occupation of houses.

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, Vs The District… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1866 of 2001

¶4

Between:

¶5

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, rep.by its President Shri Gopireddy Sailu, S/o.Asanna,aged-50 yrs,Occ-Mason, R/o.Jillellaguda village,Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The District Collector, Hyderabad Dist. Stn.Road, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. R/o.3-6-184,St.No.17,Himayathnagar Hyderabad.

¶10

3 The District Manager (Housing) A.P.S.H.C Ltd.,

¶11

Housing Cell Hyderabad.

¶12

4 Revenue Divisional Officer, East Divn., Goshamahal Road Hyderabad

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus under article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in not completing the rehabilitation project meant for the members of the petitioner's Society in Sy.No.119 of Jillellaguda village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the proceedings of Respondent no.3, work order no.HC/AE-2529/99 dt.1-4-2000 issued in terms of the administrative sanction granted by the respondent no.2 vide procs.no.3573/AE10/Engg./APUD & HC/Hyd/99 dated 7-101999 and being unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary, against the policy of the State and consequently direct the Respondents to complete the constructions of houses expeditiously while completing the verification simultaneously to save money and time.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No : 1866 of 2001

¶19

O R D E R :

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not completing the rehabilitation project meant for the members of the petitioner-society in Sy.No.119 of Jillellaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of the work order dated 01-04-2000 issued by the third respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

¶21

When the matter is taken up, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the rehabilitation project has been completed. Hence, no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition.

¶22

However, learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar submitted that the houses constructed under the rehabilitation project are being occupied by several ineligible persons and in spite of the request made by the petitioner-society, respondents failed to take necessary steps.

¶23

Since it is a subsequent development and no material is available on record to substantiate the said allegation, though I am not inclined to go into that issue, the petitioner-society is granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by working the out appropriate remedy as available under law.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

G. ROHINI, J

¶26

Dated: 11-02-2009 KLP

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Imlibun Residents Welfare Society, v. The District Collector

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

Pydi Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s/ A.K. Minerals a firm registered under Partnership Act Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund

Smt.Zaibunnisa Begum, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary

Ch.Venkat Rami Reddy, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd./

Seelam Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

Sathi Phalakshi Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradersh State Transmission Corporation Ltd.