Disposed

M. Ome Prakash v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC17 Apr 2012WP/10905/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging failure of GHMC to act on petitioner's representation regarding illegal constructions by neighbors was disposed of without merit. Court directed GHMC Commissioner to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Commissioner, GHMC to consider the representation dated 28.12.2011 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents no.4 and 5.

M. Ome Prakash Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10905 OF 2012

¶7

Between :
M. Ome Prakash.	- - - Petitioner.
	AND
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,	Tank Bund Road,
Hyderabad,	Rep.
by it’s
Commissioner and four others.	- - - Respondents.

¶8

This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.10905 OF 2012

¶10

O R D E R:

¶11

This Writ Petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in not preventing the illegal constructions being carried by the respondents Nos.4 and 5, in Door No. 16-2-705/11 of Mumtaz College Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad in spite of his representation dated 28.12.2011 to the respondents Nos.1 to 3, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action, against the respondents Nos.4 and 5, in the interest of Justice.

¶12

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

¶13

The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the building situated in D.No.16-2-705/11/1, Mumtaz College Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Adjacent to his site, his brother also constructed a building and there is a road passing in favour of their respective sites and as such the site of the petitioner and his brother is covered with shops, which they got constructed to the eastern side of their sites duly facing the shops to the road. While things stood thus, the petitioner’s brother demolished his building and started constructing a new building, duly encroaching the passage without

¶14

leaving any set backs and also constructed a bathroom attaching to the building wall of the petitioner, without obtaining any permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.12.2011 to the respondents Nos.1 to 3, to take appropriate action against the unauthorized and illegal constructions, being carried out by the respondents Nos.4 and 5, without leaving any set backs. As the respondents Nos.1 to 3 failed to take any action against his representation, he filed Writ Petition No.373 of 2012 against respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein and against one M. Sudershan seeking to demolish the alleged unauthorized and illegal constructions. In the said writ petition, as the said respondent, M. Sudershan, filed counter saying that he has no right or title in favour of the property since the same has been sold to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 herein, the petitioner withdraw the same and filed the present writ petition duly adding respondents Nos.4 and 5 as necessary parties.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 – Municipal Corporation.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are not only immediate neighbours to the petitioner but also his relatives and as such they started the constructions, without obtaining any valid permission from the GHMC, encroaching the passage, illegally, without leaving any set backs, not only affecting the petitioners’ premises but also the passage. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation, dated 28.12.2011 to the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action, but no action has been taken so far.

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶18

Nos.1 to 3 - Municipal Corporation, would submit that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.12.2011.

¶19

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief, sought for in this Writ Petition?

¶20

From a reading of the brief facts discussed above, it is clear that the respondents Nos.4 and 5 started constructions illegally, without obtaining any permission from the GHMC, duly encroaching the passage, without leaving any set backs and subsequently the respondents Nos.1 to 3 also failed to take any action against the representation of the petitioner. Now, at this juncture, both the learned counsel submitted that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 may be directed to take appropriate action against the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2011.

¶21

Hence, in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 28.12.2011, in the office of Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos.4 and 5.

¶22

Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶24

Date.17-04-2012. Dsh.

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶26

103

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.10905 OF 2012

¶28

APRIL 17, 2012

¶29

DSH

M. Ome Prakash v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ome Prakash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinjari Pedda Swamanna Vs The Govt. of Andhra PRadesh

A.M. Emanuel Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of

Rajanikanth Vs The Commissioner

K. Syamsundar Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Rajender Prasad, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Chiman Lal Agarwal Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatio, Tank bund