Disposed

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011WP/18668/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a common order regarding a writ petition challenging lack of infrastructure and a contempt case for violating interim orders. The court, considering the respondent's affidavit stating completion by end of September 2011, granted a three-month extension. The writ petition and contempt case were closed.

What did the court decide?

Three months' time granted to respondent authorities to complete remaining development works by end of September 2011; writ petition and contempt case closed.

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 18668 of 2007 and CONTEMPT CASE No. 1240 of 2007

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Questioning the action of the respondents in not providing basic infrastructural facilities including roads and drains to the residents of VGTM UDA colony, in disposing of the land earmarked for shopping complexes in favour of the 4^th respondent for construction of residential apartments contrary to the plan and diverting the funds contrary to the scheme without providing basic amenities in the colony, the Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula Sankshema Sangham (Regd.), UDA Colony, Chencupeta, Tenali, Guntur District, represented by its President Gummadi Narayana Rao, filed the present writ petition.

¶5

This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 03.09.2007, passed interim orders in W.P.M.P. Nos. 23963 and 23964 of 2007, directing the 2^nd respondent- Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, not to utilize the spaces left open for different purposes other than the purposes for which they were intended to, as per the layout.

¶6

While so, contending that, in spite of the aforesaid interim orders of this Court, respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition, who are shown

¶7

as respondents 1 and 2 in the contempt case, are proceeding with the construction of apartments in the place which is earmarked for shopping complex and thereby they have committed contempt of the orders of the Court, the writ petitioner filed the present contempt case, praying the Court to punish respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition, for committing contempt of Court.

¶8

Respondents 2 and 4 filed their counter-affidavits in the contempt case and they have taken a stand that the alleged construction of apartments is being carried out only in the land reserved for residential purpose as per the revised layout and that there is no deviation in the utilization of the spaces for the purpose for which they are intended to, as per the layout revised in the month of October 2006.

¶9

During the pendency of the contempt case, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, stating that the respondent authorities have increased harassment towards the members of the petitioner association after filing of the present contempt case and that they have dug trenches in front of some of the houses of the petitioner’s association in the guise of providing drainage facilities and left them unfilled and also caused damage to the foundation of some of the houses under the guise of laying drainage channel. Thereupon, as per the directions of this Court, the 2^nd respondent filed an additional affidavit indicating the status of developmental works taken up and executed by them and submitted that some more time is required for

¶10

completing all developmental works. Ultimately, he filed another additional affidavit dated 17.06.2011, wherein while giving the details of the work completed so far, he categorically stated that the remaining works will be taken up and completed by the end of this financial year in phased manner.

¶11

However, today, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General submits that it will take another six months’ time to complete the entire works.

¶12

In the circumstances, finally, three months’ time is granted to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities shall complete all the remaining development works by the end of September 2011, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to revive the contempt proceedings.

¶13

The writ petition and the contempt case are accordingly closed.

¶14

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶15

1^st July, 2011 IBL

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

G. Jayaramaiah Vs P. Buchi Reddy

G.Jayaramaiah, Vs P.Buchi Reddy

G. Jayaramaiah Vs P. Buchi Reddy

T.Ramadevi, Vs Dama Dhana Lakshmi

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula Vs Sri Y.S.Prasad

Hashim Habib Rehan Vs Sameer Sharma, Commissioner