Dismissed

Kilari Krishna v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Jul 2012WP/16412/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking renewal of a building permission valid until February 6, 2001, stating no provision exists for renewal. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application within six weeks, with respondents to decide within two months. The petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh application for building permission within six weeks; respondents to consider and decide within two months; writ petition disposed of.

Kilari Krishna Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16412 OF 2012

¶3

Date:04.07.2012

¶4

Between: Kilari Krishna .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Kadapa And others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.16412 OF 2012

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing the approved building plan in respect of site to an extent of 0.02½ cents in Plot No.24, Ward No.10 in Survey No.51, situated at Dharmapuram, Chitvel Road, Railway Kodur Town, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted house site patta by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Railway Kodur, vide DKT Patta No.587/1398, dated 24.11.1988, in respect of site to an extent of Ac.0.2½ cents in plot No.24 of Survey No.51. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted an application for grant of building permission along with the plan and the same was approved by the Gram Panchayat Railway Kodur on 07.02.2000 in B.A.No.111/99-2000 and the same was valid upto 06.02.2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he could not complete the construction, he applied for the renewal, but the respondents are not considering the same.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no provision for renewal of building

¶11

permission under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules governing thereunder.

¶12

In this case, it is to be seen that the petitioner has obtained building permission as early as in the year 2000 and the same was valid up to 06.02.2001. In that view of the matter, by filing an application at a belated stage, the petitioner cannot seek any relief for grant of renewal of building permission, more so when it is stated by the respondents that there is no provision for renewing the building permission.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. However, it is open to him to make a fresh application for grant of approval of building permission, along with the required documents, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶14

On filing such application, the respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate decision as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

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

¶16

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition also stand disposed of.

¶17

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

04.07.2012 Note:- Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) KH

Kilari Krishna v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilari Krishna v. The District Collector

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

St. Peters Educational Society Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

V.M.C.Contract Workers and Labour Union,Municipal Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

A.v.Appanna Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

R.Venkateshwarlu, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Kollori Sita Ramulu, Vs The District Collector

Uppala Vishwanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh