Disposed

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani, v. District Collector

Telangana HC23 Sept 2010WP/7642/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the respondents' proposed demolition of the petitioner's sunshade/balcony, violating G.O.Ms.No.377 dated 12.10.1973, was liable to be deprecated. A direction was issued not to interfere with the structure without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to demolish the sunshade/balcony of the petitioner's building without following due process of law.

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani, Vs District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7642 of 2005

¶3

Dated:23.09.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani .. Petitioner

¶6

And The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and others .. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.7642 of 2005

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring

¶11

the action of the respondents in proposing to demolish the sunshade/balcony of the petitioner’s building at Door No.1-1, Main Road, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District, which is violative of G.O.Ms.No.377, dated 12.10.1973, as arbitrary and illegal and also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents not to demolish the sunshade/balcony of the petitioner’s building.

¶12

It appears, the petitioner is the owner of the said property, in which she constructed R.C.C. building with sunshade/balcony on the front side of the building. On 04.04.2005, the respondents 3 and 4 along with their staff inspected her house and marked red mark on her portico, which was laid above 11 feet height from the foundation, and threatened to demolish the same, without issuing any show cause notice to her.

¶13

No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.

¶15

The action proposed by the respondents for demolition of sunshade/balcony over the building of the petitioner bearing Door No.1-1, Main Road, Penugonda Mandal, is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.377, dated 12.10.1973. Therefore, the action of the respondents is liable to be deprecated.

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion and without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the sunshade/balcony of the petitioner’s building without following due process of law.

¶17

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no

¶18

order as to costs.

¶19

______________ C.V. RAMULU, J

¶20

23.09.2010 KH

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani, v. District Collector

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

Muppaneni Vikram Aditya Vs Osmania University, represented by its Registrar

Mahatma Gandhi Bamboo, Basket workers Industrial Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

T.v.Govinda Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh

M. Seshagiri Rao, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Sri Mannem Lakshminatha Reddy, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

B. Chandramouli Vs District Collector