Disposed

Praveen Kumar Modi, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014WP/16410/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of six writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 636 of GHMC Act by allowing liberty to appeal against the rejection of regularization applications under BPS Scheme before the Appellate Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.121, 2014.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to avail remedy of appeal against rejection orders before Appellate Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 13.05.2014, within one month.

Praveen Kumar Modi, Vs Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.16258, 16410, 16422, 16423, 16428, 16454, 16455 16462 & 19550 of 2009

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as the relief sought in all the cases relate to Renuka Complex, situated at Syed Jung Lane, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶4

2. The petitioners are owners of different shops in the said complex, having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds. The building was constructed by one Smt.Renuka Bai Pinglae consisting of ground + 2 floors with nearly 20 shops. While so, One Mohan Singh and others filed a suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the original landlords before the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.4544 of 2001 and it was decreed ex parte. When the petitioners purchased the said property, they were not aware of the same. In the year 2005, when notices in E.P.No.164 of 2003 in the said suit were issued to some of the occupants in the said building, they filed E.A.No.319 of 2005 and O.S.No.2805 of 2005, but the suit was dismissed. When the Government introduced the Building Penalization Scheme, the petitioners submitted applications to the second respondent by paying the requisite fee. Pending the applications of the petitioners, the second respondent issued notices under Section 636 of the GHMC Act. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions were filed.

¶5

3. This Court, in all these Writ Petitions, granted stay of all further proceedings, by virtue of which, the petitioners have been continuing without any threat of demolition from the respondent.

¶6

4. Now, the third respondent, who was impleaded in the Writ Petitions, submits that the applications of the petitioners for

¶7

regularization under BPS Scheme were rejected on various grounds. The learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that since there is a provision for appeal against the orders of rejection, the petitioners may be given liberty to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶8

5. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under BPS Scheme to the Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 13.05.2014, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Committee shall consider and dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Till the orders are passed by the Appellate Committee, the interim stay granted by this Court shall continue to operate.

¶9

6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

_______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2014 TJMR

Praveen Kumar Modi, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Modi, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mir Mustafa Ali Vs The Commissioner

Garipelli Nara Goud, Vs The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent-cum-Functional

Atluri Srinivasa Siva Rani Vs Comissioner

K.Kedari, Vs The Govt.Of A.P

Rakesh Kumar Agarwasl Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Pradeep Kumar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its