Allowed

T.v.K.Sudhmayi,W/o. Gangadhar, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada Rep.by its Commissioner

Telangana HC9 Jul 2012WP/19959/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a stay order preventing the respondent Municipal Corporation from demolishing unauthorized constructions by the petitioner. The court directed prior notice and an opportunity of hearing in terms of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to issue notice and grant opportunity of hearing before demolishing the petitioner's constructions.

T.v.K.Sudhmayi,W/o. Gangadhar, Vs Municipal Corporation… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19959 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in taking steps to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner in premises bearing

¶5

D.No.13-2-2/1 situated at Latchiraju Street, Kakinada, as illegal.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that she has constructed shops in the ground floor and four upper floors in premises bearing

¶7

No.13-2-2/1 situated at Latchiraju Street, Kakinada. It is stated that she purchased two house-site plots admeasuring about 893 sq.yards under registered sale deeds. Thereafter, to develop the said property, she has entered into an agreement with the developer for construction of ground floor + four upper floors and three commercial shops in the ground floor and a pent house on the terrace. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though constructions were made as per the sanctioned

¶8

plan, the respondent is taking steps to demolish the same without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing.

¶9

When the matter was listed on an earlier occasion i.e., on 03.07.2012, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Kakinada appearing for the respondent to obtain instructions in the matter. When the matter is taken up today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that though permission was given to the petitioner for construction of stilt, ground and three upper floors, the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed pent house on the terrace and even in the ground floor, parking area is converted into three shops, which are also unauthorized. It is also submitted that apprehending demolition even before initiation of proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶10

For removal of unauthorized constructions, as per the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which is made applicable to the Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, the respondent has to issue notice and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the same and as it is stated that

¶11

there are no proceedings initiated against the petitioner yet, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent not to take any steps for demolition of the premises in question, without issuing any notice and giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that if there are any structures constructed by the petitioner in deviation of the sanctioned plan, this order will not preclude the respondent to take steps in accordance with law for removal of the same.

¶12

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

¶13

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25573 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶14

_______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9^th JULY, 2012

¶15

kvni

T.v.K.Sudhmayi,W/o. Gangadhar, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada Rep.by its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.v.K.Sudhmayi,W/o. Gangadhar, v. Municipal Corporation of Kakinada Rep.by its Commissioner

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

Gayathri Enterprises Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Attilli Kamakshamma, Vs The Commissioner

Y.Venkata Ramana, Vs The Regional Joint Director

Sri Bosabina Suribabu Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Jyaprakash Mukkawar Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Mr. Mohammed Saluhuddin, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority