Disposed

Ch.Saritha, v. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal

Telangana HC2 Jul 2012WP/19103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner could not avail deemed provision for construction as her application was rejected due to the site lacking an approved layout and missing regularization. Consequently, the impugned notice was not invalidated entirely; instead, the respondent was directed to postpone demolition for four months to allow the petitioner to resubmit a valid application, pending which n

What did the court decide?

The respondent not to take steps for demolition of existing structures for a period of four months; the petitioner directed not to make any further constructions.

Ch.Saritha, Vs The Municipal Corporation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19103 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Warangal appearing for the respondent.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring notice bearing No.UCR/01/2012-13, dated 08.05.2012 issued by the respondent for removal of constructions made by the petitioner in plot admeasuring 266.66 sq.yards covered by Survey No.83 of Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of a

¶7

house-site admeasuring 266.66 sq.yards covered by Survey No.83 of Waddepally Revenue Village, having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 07.02.2011. It is stated that with a view to make constructions, the petitioner by paying Rs.38,694/-, submitted an application for permission on 29.02.2012, but, as there was no refusal within the statutory period, by

¶8

availing the benefit of deemed provision, she proceeded with the construction. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in view of deemed sanction, the impugned notice issued by the respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

On the last occasion, when the matter was listed, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has produced before this Court original file, a perusal of which indicates that the application of the petitioner has been rejected stating that the site in question is not covered by any approved layout and she has not submitted any copy of regularization under LRS Scheme.

¶10

It is to be noticed that the petitioner also has not given plot number in respect of the site in question even before this Court. When the application of the petitioner was already rejected, she cannot avail the benefit of deemed provision for the purpose of making construction. It is to be seen that benefit of deemed provision can be availed provided valid application is filed by the applicant as contemplated under law. As the site in question is not covered by any approved layout, in the absence of LRS application and in view of rejection of the petitioner’s

¶11

application for construction permission, it is not open to her to proceed with the constructions by availing the benefit of deemed provision.

¶12

In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground in this writ petition to invalidate the impugned notice. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there are any objections, the petitioner would comply and resubmit the application. In view of the same and as much as it is stated that the site in question was purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent not to take any steps for demolition of the structures, which are already constructed, pursuant to the impugned notice for a period of four months from today. In the meanwhile, it is open to the petitioner to comply the objections and resubmit the application for grant of construction permission. If such application is submitted by the petitioner within the aforesaid time,

¶13

I am sure, the respondent will consider the same and take appropriate decision, and after expiry of such time, it is open to the respondent to take steps in accordance with law. The petitioner also shall not make any constructions on the site in question.

¶14

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24473 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶16

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2^nd JULY, 2012. kvni

Ch.Saritha, v. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Saritha, v. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal

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

Smt. N. Jayashree, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kotla Venkata Ramakrishna Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.S.Varma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Mrs. Hasan Uzzaman Begum, D/o. Late Mirza Mohsin Ali Khan, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gulam Zainulabideen Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Thuppati Eswaraiah, Vs The Municipal Corporation