Disposed

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy v. The Municipal Commissioner

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012WP/11861/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning building regularisation. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for regularisation if all stipulated conditions were complied with, noting the petitioner had satisfied the conditions mentioned in an endorsement dated 13.10.2010.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's case for building regularisation if conditions stipulated in endorsement dated 13.10.2010 are complied with. No order as to costs.

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy Vs The Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.11861 of 2012

¶6

Between: Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar and another

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.11861 of 2012

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in regularising his building premises bearing H.No.2-10345, situated at Jyothinagar locality of Karimnagar even after compliance with the conditions stipulated in the impugned endorsement No.BPS/975/15/08/KNR dated 13.10.2010.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that he has submitted an application before the respondents seeking regularisation of his building, and the respondents under the impugned endorsement dated 13.10.2010, intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has to comply with certain conditions. The petitioner has complied with all conditions, as pointed out by the respondents. But the respondents have not considered his case for regularisation of his building. Learned counsel for the standing counsel for respondents submits that the respondents would consider the application of the petitioner, if it is in order.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his building premises bearing H.No.2-10-345, situated at Jyothinagar locality of Karimnagar, if the

¶19

petitioner has already complied with all conditions as stipulated in the impugned letter dated 13.10.2010, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶20

____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶21

Dated:26.04.2012 Dsr

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy v. The Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy v. The Municipal Commissioner

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

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Dasari Mari Rajeswari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bairi Yadava Reddy Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation

M/s Krupa Granites Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh