Disposed

J.Suveer Sen v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its

Telangana HC9 Jun 2010WP/12710/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenging demolition of his compound wall by GHMC without notice and hearing. The court disposed of the petition directing the respondent to provide notice and opportunity of hearing before any demolition.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to demolish the compound wall except after giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing.

J.Suveer Sen Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12710 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC. At their request, the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of a house bearing No.1-25-141/10, Laxmi Enclave, Bhoodevi Nagar, Alwal, Hyderabad, and to have purchased a residential house bearing No.257/18 part on Plot No.7 and part of Plot No.8 in Survey Nos.415, 419 and 420 parts admeasuring 180 square yards situated at Gollaguda Village under Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004. The petitioner claims to have obtained permission on 01.03.2004 from the Municipal Council, Alwal Municipality, for construction of ground floor plus first floor building. He claims to have constructed a pent house on the second floor and to have obtained orders of regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme.

¶6

While matter stood thus, the respondents are alleged to have visited the petitioner’s property on 20.05.2010, and to have directed him to remove the compound wall on the Eastern side, on the ground that a storm water drain was passing into the land appurtenant to the petitioner’s property and that the said drain belonged to the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no notice was issued to him and he was not given an opportunity of being heard.

¶7

Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner had

¶8

encroached upon the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation wherein a drain was located and, since he had constructed a compound wall over the drain located on the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation, necessary action would have to be taken for removal of the compound wall. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Corporation would put the petitioner on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law for removal of the compound wall.

¶9

In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not demolish the compound wall in question except after putting the petitioner on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶10

_______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶11

9^th June 2010 RRB

J.Suveer Sen v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Suveer Sen v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its

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

Karri Venkatesh Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

T.Sankara Reddy Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust

Mamillapalli Satyanarayana Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust, Atchuta

Sri Chaitanya Brilliant School Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Mantrala Venkateswaralu Vs Simchalam Devasthanam

Mohammed Munawar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation