Allowed

U. Gowri Bai, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Jul 2012WP/21362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-regularization of a plot and a specific intimation. Relying on a prior order in WP No.16834 of 2012, the Court set aside the intimation and directed the Municipal Corporation to consider a regularization application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Intimation Lr.No.G/19187/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/2008 set aside; petitioner permitted to file representation for regularization; direction to second respondent to consider application within three months.

U. Gowri Bai, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21362 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.144 in Sy.No.66/2 situated in Raidurg Navkhalsa (V), Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District under Layout Regularization 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.144 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/19187/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/2008 dated 22.03.2012 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/19187/LRS/CirXI/WZ/2008 dated 22.03.2012.”

¶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/19187/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/2008 dated 22.03.2012, 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/19187/LRS/Cir-XI/WZ/2008 dated 22.03.2012 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.27369 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶18

_____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13^th July, 2012 MRR

U. Gowri Bai, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. Gowri Bai, 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

B. Sudhakar Rao Vs The Municipal corporation of Nizamabad

G. Ramesh Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pullemla Yadamma, Vs The Gram Panchayat Narketpalli

Alka Sinha Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.Jyothi Bai, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitian Water Works and -

Shri S.Venkat Rao, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation