Disposed

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., v. Union of India

Telangana HC4 Mar 2009WP/27862/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner society sought a writ declaring respondents' inaction illegal and directing road connection. The court found a simpler solution was to direct respondents to consider the petitioner's fresh application on road access within a specified timeframe, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to make fresh application; respondents directed to dispose of it within two months.

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., Vs Union… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 27862 of 1996

¶5

Between:

¶6

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., a society registered under the provisions of A.P.Co.op. Societies Act, 1964, bearing Regd.No.TB-860, Gopalanagar, (Venture 2), Boosareddyguda, Secunderabad-26 rep., by its Director, B.Rajkumar, s/o B.Sitaram.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Union of India, rep., by its Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Central Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi.

¶10

2 Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep., by its Executive Officer, City Civil Courts Compound, Secunderabad.

¶11

3 Sarvasukhi Co-op.Housing Society Ltd., Dinshwar Nagar, Boosareddyguda, Secunderabad rep., by its President, G.Sanjeeva Rao, Plot No.8, Sarvasukhi Colony,

¶12

W.Marredpally, Secunderabad-26.

¶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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not complying with bylaws 9 and 14 of the Layout Bylaws, 1974 framed under the Cantonments Act, 1924, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith connect the 30' wide road facing plot Nos.38 and 42 on the Western side in the petitioner society to the main road leading to Marredpally through a culvert over the nala flowing from East to West of the petitioner Society colony and the park to the East of the 3rd respondent society in accordance with the sanctioned layout dated 28-5-1983 as approved by the 1st respondent on 24-6-1983

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

3^rd respondent.

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in complying with the bylaws 9 and 14 of the Layout Bylaws, 1974 framed under the Cantonments Act, 1924 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith connect the 30’ wide road facing Plot Nos.38 and 42 on the Western side in the petitioner Society the main road leading to Marredpally through a culvert over the nala flowing from East to West of the petitioner Society Colony and the park to the East of the 3^rd respondent Society in accordance with the sanctioned layout dated 28.5.1983 as approved by the 1^st respondent on 24.06.1983.

¶22

The facts that led to file this writ petition are that the petitioner’s Society had purchased an area of 26015 square yards situated in Survey No.67 and 69 of Boosareddyguda (Bholakpur village) within the limits of Secunderabad Cantonment. Thereafter, the petitioner’s Society approached the 2^nd respondent, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, for approval of layout so as to enable them to allot plots to its members. The said layout was approved by the 2^nd respondent on 28.05.1983 and by

¶23

the 1^st respondent on 24.06.1983. Thereafter, the individual plots were allotted to the members of the petitioner’s Society.

¶24

In all, there were 49 plots and most of the members have constructed their houses and are living therein.

¶25

The 3^rd respondent, Sarvasukhi Co-operative Housing Society

¶26

Limited, is making some constructions in the area pertaining to the 3^rd respondent Society and particularly in an area meant for park, which is practically coming in the way of the petitioner’s Society in using the said land for the purpose of road. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the 3^rd respondent Society has not followed the Bylaw Nos.9 and 14 of the Bylaws of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the 3^rd respondent Society is making illegal construction in a place that is to be used as a road for the locality people of the petitioner’s Society, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the 3^rd respondent is making some illegal constructions.

¶29

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that the allegations made by the petitioner and as well as the 2^nd respondent are not correct. The 3^rd respondent Society’s layout is approved and as per the approved plan, they have made the constructions. The place earmarked for park, which is sought to be used as road by the petitioner, for reaching from the petitioner’s Colony to that of main road, is not permissible and they have a way as per the approved plan of the petitioner’s Society. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to use any land situated in the layout of the 3^rd respondent’s Society.

¶30

From the above averments, it could be seen that in addition to the existing road for the use of the residents of the petitioner’s Society, they want additional road leading from their locality to that of main road, which is a nearest way, in respect of which, an application seems to have been filed before the respondent official authorities and the same has not been considered. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, and in order to meet the ends of justice, I pass the order as under:

¶31

The petitioner is given liberty to make appropriate application afresh, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶32

this order and on receiving such an application from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶35

Date: 04-03-2009 LSK

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., v. Union of India

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

S.Govardhanagiri Yadav, S/o.Pakeeranna Vs The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bethamcherla Branch

Boyapati Sleeva Reddy, Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Kothagudem Branch

Smt.Basheerunnisa Begum and 6 Others Vs Muncipal Commissioner Hyd and Another

T.Venkatramana Vs The District Collector

Shaik Kalesha Saheb, Vs The Dist.Collector

D.Eshwara Chandra Rao, Vs Commissioner of Survay