Dismissed

K. Ravinder Mudiraj, v. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014WP/245/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a tentative layout issued by the first respondent. The court held that a revised final layout plan had been approved superseding earlier drafts, rendering the petitioner's claim infructuous, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as having become infructuous; all miscellaneous petitions pending thereon closed.

K. Ravinder Mudiraj, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 245 OF 2008

¶3

DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

K.Ravinder Mudiraj …Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman and ors

¶8

….Respondents.

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 245 OF 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioner purchased Plot No.126 admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.Nos.20,32,33,65,66,67,68 and 69 of Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Gajula Ramaram village, Quthbullapur Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner also purchased Plot Nos.124 and 125 admeasuring 600 square yards situate in the aforesaid Survey Numbers under registered sale deed dated 20.10.2005. When he went to the aforesaid plots, he came to know that a board in the name of M/s. Vaishnavi Builders was erected in the said plots. On enquiry, it was noticed that the first respondent has given tentative lay out vide No.4648/MP2/HUDA/04, dated --07-2005 to the said builders covering some of the plots of the petitioner. Immediately he gave complaint to the Jeedimetla Police Station and Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur, however, no action

¶13

has been taken thereon. The petitioner also got issued legal notice on 4.12.2007 calling upon the first respondent to take objections of the petitioner and other similar persons who are owners of small plots in Sy.Nos. 20,32,33,65 to 69 of Gajula Ramaram village into consideration and cancel the tentative layout. When no action has been taken by the first respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that a revised final layout plan approved by the Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA on 09.06.2000 to an extent of Ac.15.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.20 and 32 of Gajularamaram village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of GHMC area was released superseding all layouts approved/released earlier. In view of the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent based on the written instructions, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶15

In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶16

------------------------------------------------JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶17

DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro

K. Ravinder Mudiraj, v. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ravinder Mudiraj, v. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

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

M/s. Sivarama Krishna Rice Industries Private Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

M/s. Navaloka Mahila Mandali Dwakra Group Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal

Adarsha Municipal Workers Wifes Group Vs The Commissioner

Smt. G. Yellamma Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District

Hotel Annapurna, H.No.6-2-940, Vs Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gyan Vatika Education Society, Rep. by its Secretary Vs Government of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary