Disposed

G.Prakasham, v. Bhongir Municipality

Telangana HC18 Apr 2011WP/9194/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-response of the Bhongir Municipality to the petitioner's representation about unauthorized constructions on his land. The Court noted the petitioner should approach the civil court for relief and disposed of the writ as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; connected interim petition disposed of as infructuous.

G.Prakasham, Vs Bhongir Municipality — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.9194 of 2009

Between:

G. Prakasham

..... Petitioner

AND

Bhongir Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner Nalgonda District & another.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Srinivas Reddy for Sri P. Laxma Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Ch. Hemachand Naidu for Smt. Shanthi Neelam

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9194 of 2009

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing

¶17

and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 01.04.2009 and instead seeking to supply the construction material for raising structures over the land comprised in Sy.Nos.10, 14, 16, 17 and 33 of Bhongir Town, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the owner and shareholder of the land in the abovementioned survey numbers. According to him, a preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.No.24 of 1986 and A.S.No.569 of 2007 filed by the aggrieved parties against the said judgment and decree is pending in this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain persons, who claim to be the allottees under the Indiramma Housing Scheme, are seeking to raise constructions over the land in the abovementioned survey numbers and that the representation made by him to respondent No.1 has not yielded any response.

¶20

In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Bhongir Municipality, respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.1 has not allotted any land in Sy.Nos.10, 14, 16, 17 and 33 of Bhongir village. Respondent No.1 has denied the allegations of the petitioner that it is allowing third parties to occupy the petitioner’s land treating the same as the land belonging to Government and issuing possession certificates to such persons. It is further stated that respondent No.1 has issued notices to persons, who are raising unauthorized constructions under Section 228(1) (2) and (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 on 11.06.2009 calling upon them to submit

¶21

ownership documents within seven days, failing which it be will assumed that there are no ownership documents and the houses sanctioned under Indiramma Housing Scheme will be cancelled.

¶22

From the pleadings of respondent No.1, it is evident that no part of the land over which the petitioner is claiming his rights was allotted under Indiramma Housing Scheme. If the purported beneficiaries are raising constructions over the land in which the petitioner is claiming share and interest, he is entitled to approach the competent civil Court for claiming appropriate relief.

¶23

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.12049 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶25

Date: 18.04.2011 ES

G.Prakasham, v. Bhongir Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Prakasham, v. Bhongir Municipality

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

Pentakota Venkata Rao Vs Subbineni Sudhakar

Gopathi Manikyam, Vs The Joint Collector

N.Syamala Vs The Sub Registrar

R. Kamalakar Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector - I

Kuna Lachaiah Vs The Additional Agent to State Government and Project Officer

D. Venkata Narsimha Appa Rao Vs The Agent to Government , District Collector