Allowed

G. Ramesh Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Jul 2012WP/20848/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge discharged duties under Article 226 by setting aside an intimation refusing regularization of a plot. Relying on a prior judgment, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent Corporation to reconsider the application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the intimation; permitted petitioner to file representation with documents; directed Respondent to reconsider application within three months.

G. Ramesh Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20848 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶5

This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:

¶6

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

¶7

a) Declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not regularizing Plot No.19 in Sy.No.66/2 situated in Raidurg Navkhalsa (V), Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District under Layout Regularisation Scheme as illegal, arbitrary and against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶8

b) Consequently direct respondents 2 and 3 to regularize Plot No.19 in Sy.No.66/2 situated in Raidurg Navkhalsa (V), Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District under the Layout Regularization Scheme.

¶9

c) Declaring the intimation in Lr.No.G/9156/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/2008 dated 13.03.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and

¶10

against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

¶11

d) Also pray for other consequential and incidental reliefs, including direction of setting aside Lr.No.G/9156/LRS/CirXI/WZ/2008 dated 13.03.2012.”

¶12

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that identical issue has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.16834 of 2012, which was allowed with certain directions. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the issue is covered by order, dated 15.06.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16834 of 2012.

¶13

In view of aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, following the order, dated 15.06.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16834 of 2012 and for the reasons recorded therein,

¶14

I deem it appropriate to set aside intimation bearing Lr.No.G/9156/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/20, dated 13.03.2012, and permit the petitioner to file a representation along with the documents including a copy of judgment in A.S.No.36 of 2006 and also a copy of this order, before the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from today. Thereupon, the second respondent is directed to consider

¶15

the application, which has already been filed by the petitioner for regularization by taking into account the judgment in A.S.No.36 of 2006 and all other documents, if any filed by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months thereafter.

¶16

In that view of the matter, intimation bearing Lr.No.G/9156/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/20, dated 13.03.2012 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the directions indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶17

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26708 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶18

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10^th JULY, 2012. Note: issue c.c. in three days. kvni

G. Ramesh Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Ramesh Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bosabina Suribabu Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Jyaprakash Mukkawar Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

B. Sudhakar Rao Vs The Municipal corporation of Nizamabad

Pullemla Yadamma, Vs The Gram Panchayat Narketpalli

Mohd.Abdul Muqeeth Vs The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal