Allowed

Shiv Kumar Gupta v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC25 Apr 2012WP/12312/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, disposed of a writ petition filed by an aggrieved citizen seeking regularization of an unauthorized building construction. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending application and show cause explanation while ensuring nondemolition of the structure.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider application and show cause explanation within four weeks; not to demolish construction.

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12312 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shiv Kumar Gupta & another.

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad & another.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

This Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12312 of 2012

¶14

ORDER:-

¶15

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

¶16

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the application No.1036/C5/S2/08, dated 31.05.2008, submitted by the petitioner for regularization of the unauthorized constructed building/building constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner also filed WPMP.No.15454 of 2012 to direct the respondents to remove, alter or pull down the deviated portion/unauthorized construction in cellar and stilt floor for parking purpose/sealing of premises, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

The cause of action for the petitioner in approaching this Court is that the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) vide proceedings, dated 15.03.2012, holding that some unauthorised construction is being made by the petitioner in respect of the building in question. Therefore, within three days the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation failing which necessary action will be taken. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 19.03.2012, denying the allegations made in the said show cause notice. In spite of the said representation, neither the respondents have considered the application stated to have been submitted by the petitioner on 31.05.2008 seeking regularization nor passed any orders pursuant to

¶18

the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2012.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted his application seeking regularization as early as 31.05.2008 and produced all the relevant documents including payment of necessary fee, but the petitioner has not received any orders. While so, the 2^nd respondent has issued the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2012, under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act asking the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the unauthorized construction shall not be removed. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation, which is pending.

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) That the respondents are directed to consider the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2012, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

ii) That the respondents are also directed to consider the application No.1036/C5/S2/08, dated 31.05.2008, if it is not disposed of, within a period of four weeks.

¶22

iii) The respondents are also directed not to demolish the construction made by the petitioner.

¶23

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, are disposed of.

¶24

____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶25

Date: 25.04.2012 ES

Shiv Kumar Gupta v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Gupta 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

G.Rama Subba Reddy Vs The District Collector

V.G.Rama Krishna, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

S. Sriramappa , Sreeramulu Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

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

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation