Dismissed

Pralhad Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011WP/6816/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent illegal construction by an adjacent neighbor and demolish existing unauthorized structures. The Court dismissed the petition, holding it not maintainable as the disputed factual issues were sub judice in a pending civil appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the issues were pending in a civil appeal.

Pralhad Rao, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.6816 OF 2010

¶3

DATE: 16.12.2011

¶4

BETWEEN: Pralhad Rao .. Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner and Special Officer and another .. Respondents

¶5

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶6

W.P.No.6816 OF 2010

¶7

OREDER:

¶8

Heard the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned standing counsel for GHMC/first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶9

2. It is submitted in the writ petition that the second respondent after demolishing the old house started construction of new house with RCC pillars without taking any municipal permission or sanction from the first respondent corporation and even encroached upon the common open place in front of the petitioner’s house which lead to the obstruction of passage, blocking of natural air and light to the petitioner’s residence.

¶10

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the first respondent on several occasions and made representations to remove the illegal and unauthorized constructions made by the second respondent in the site mentioned in the writ petition, but, the first respondent did not take appropriate steps for removal of the illegal constructions made by the second respondent. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to stop the unauthorized and illegal

¶11

construction being taken up by the second respondent in House Nos.4-7-809 to 814 situated in Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad and to demolish the constructions which were made illegally and unauthorisedly by violating the rules.

¶12

4. The first respondent corporation filed counter stating that the second respondent did not obtain any permission for making construction in House Nos.4-9-809 to 814 mentioned above. Basing on the said averment made in the counter of the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that a direction be issued to the first respondent as prayed for in the writ petition.

¶13

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that as per rules, no permission from the first respondent –municipal corporation is required for site which is less than hundred square yards and the present construction is made in 50 sq. yards as per Section 455 of the HMC Act. He would further contend that an application was filed by the second respondent before the first respondent seeking regularization of the construction which was made. He would also submit that respondent No.2 filed a civil suit seeking relief of injunction against the first respondent corporation, which was dismissed on the ground that statutory notice required under Section 465 HMC Act was not issued prior to the filing of the suit against which an appeal has been filed, which is pending.

¶14

6. The issues which were raised in the writ petition are subject matter of the appeal now pending before the competent civil court and the issues cannot be decided without looking into

¶15

controversial facts. Since the issues were pending consideration in the appeal preferred by the second respondent before the competent civil court and the disputed facts are required to be enquired into, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

__________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶17

Dated: 16.12.2011 kvrm

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶19

W.P.No.6816 OF 2010

¶20

DATE: 16.12.2011

Pralhad Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Rao, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

Dr. J De Souza, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s.Ambitionz NHomez (Regd.Partnership Firm) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Satish Kumar Shah, Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Smt. Deenam Konda Pavani, Vs Greater Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation

M. Bhaskara Satyanarayana Vs Vizinagaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner

S.Janardhana Rao, Vs The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation