Disposed

M Ravinder v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Telangana HC23 Apr 2012WP/11746/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct respondents to comply with earlier orders stopping an unauthorized function hall construction in a notified residential area by giving them four weeks to act and afford hearing opportunities.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 2 to 4 to act upon orders dated 22-2-2012 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing.

M Ravinder Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WP No.11746 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS/MPPS for the respondents.

¶5

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 in not implementing the orders dated 22-2-2012 issued by the 1^st respondent to stop the unauthorized construction of function hall being constructed in Sy. Nos.4,5,6,7,8,9 & 63, 64, 65 & 66 of Medipally Village of Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 and the rules i.e. AP Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 contained in GO Ms.No.67, dated 26-2-2002, besides violative of legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to stop the construction of the function hall and declare that respondents 5 and 6 are not entitled for construction of

¶6

function hall in the above said land which is notified as residential area. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are owners of plots situated in Medipally Village of Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and they along with some other plot owners have constructed houses in the said village and the village is a residential area. It is stated that respondents 5 and 6 also own lands in the same village and with a view to construct a function hall, the 5^th respondent has applied for sanction and the 4^th respondent-Gram Panchayat, Medipally, Uppal Mandal, has mechanically, contrary to the procedure prescribed under GO Ms.No.67, dated 26-2-2002 and without obtaining approval of the competent authority i.e. the 1^st respondent, granted permission vide permission proceedings dated 1-2-2011. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the 5^th respondent started construction of the function hall and at that time the petitioners and other plot owners raised objection as to construction of a functional hall in a residential area as it would spoil the atmosphere. Since the construction was not stopped by the 5th respondent, the petitioners made a complaint to the 1^st respondent and pursuant to the complaint made, the 1^st respondent issued orders dated 22-2-2012 to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to direct the 4^th respondent to stop the construction of the function hall. It is grievance of the

¶7

petitioners that in spite of the orders issued by the 1^st respondent, no action has been taken by the respondents 2 to 4 in the matter. Hence, this writ petition.

¶8

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the orders dated 22-2-2012 issued by the 1^st respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to act upon the orders dated 22-2-2012 issued by the 1^st respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to the petitioners and also the respondents 5 and 6 and after affording opportunity of hearing to them. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶9

________________ G. Chandraiah,

¶10

¶11

Dated: 23-4-2012 Note: cc 3 days. (b/o) Nrg

M Ravinder v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ravinder v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

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

B. Narayanamma Vs The Commissioner

M. Salamma Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Y. Satyawati Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

A. Janga Reddy Vs The Gramapanchayat

Mamidala Pandu, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and

Juvvadi Praveen Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation