Disposed

Bairi Yadava Reddy v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC26 Apr 2012WP/9268/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging interference with construction permits on a site in Warangal. Court remanded matter for demarcation of land to determine if site falls within Jagruthi Colony park area.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, to get subject land demarcated to identify if site falls within Jagruthi Colony within two weeks.

Bairi Yadava Reddy Vs The Warangal Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 9268 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus, declaring the action of he respondents, in interfering with the construction of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Briefly, the facts of the case are:

¶5

The petitioner is the owner of the house site admeasuring 240 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.139 to 142, at Lashkar Singaram, Jagruthi Colony, Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.2011. The petitioner submitted an application on 02.02.2012 for building permission, and also paid Rs.48,180 to the 1^st respondent, under Receipt dated 02.02.2012, towards planning fee, VLT, betterment charges and sports cess, and he also paid Rs.9,700/- to the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, vide Challan dated 02.02.2012. The 1^st respondent granted permission to the petitioner, vide Proceedings dated 13.02.2012, permit No.98 in ROC No.G5/5150/2012, for constructing Ground + First Floor Residential building in the aforesaid premises. It is alleged that the 1^st and 2^nd respondent, under the influence of the 3^rd respondent, are not allowing the petitioner to proceed with the construction.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lawful owner of the site in question and the 1^st respondent also granted permission to him to construct the building as per plan, but the respondents are interfering with the construction. The counsel filed a better affidavit stating that the petitioner’s site falls outside the Jagruthi Colony.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, submits that had the petitioner proceeded with the construction as per plan, the respondents wouldn’t have objected for it, but the 3^rd respondents seems to have made an objection on the ground that the petitioner is encroaching into the site belonging to Jagruthi Colony, which site is meant for a park. The Standing Counsel further states that, at one place in the affidavit the petitioner states that his site is in Jagruthi Colony, and at another place he states that the site in question is outside the Jagruthi Colony, and hence it is a disputed question of fact and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶8

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the site in question, and he was granted permission for construction as per the plan submitted by him. However, on the allegations by the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner is making construction in the area earmarked for park, in Jagruthi Colony, the 1^st and 2^nd respondent objected to his construction.

¶9

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, to get the subject land demarcated by a competent officer under his control, so as to identify whether the petitioner’s site falls outside the Jagruthi Colony or within the Jagruthi Colony, and to pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to the parties concerned. Consequently, WPMPs, if any, filed along with this writ petition shall stand automatically disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶11

26^th April, 2012

¶12

KSM

Bairi Yadava Reddy v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bairi Yadava Reddy v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

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

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Dasari Mari Rajeswari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bhoompalli Mahender Reddy Vs The Municipal Commissioner

M/s Krupa Granites Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh