Disposed

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq v. The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/25813/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition regarding encroachment on a public road serving a colony and a junior college in Bhainsa town. The court directed the Municipality to act against violations of the sanctioned plan if any exist.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to take necessary action against violations of the sanctioned plan if any exist by the third respondent.

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq Vs The Commissioner… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 25813 OF 2009

¶3

DATED 23^RD SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Abdul Hai @ Ashwaq and ors

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad District and ors

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25813 OF 2009

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Counsel for the third respondent.

¶13

The first and second petitioners are the residents of Ward No.10, Nayyabadi of Bhainsa town, Adilabad District and third and fourth petitioners are the residents of Ward No.9, Marketgalli, near Junior College, Bhainsa Town, Adilabad District. They are all neighbours. A Government Junior College is situated in their locality, in between the boundaries of Ward Nos.9 and 10. On the back side of the said Junior College, there are about 500 houses and to approach their houses, there is 40 feet road in front of the College. Behind the said college, Urdu

¶14

function hall and B.C. hostel are also running and for all of them, the said 40 feet road is only the approach road. Except the said road, there is no other approach road for the benefit of their colony. When the third respondent was trying to make construction by encroaching the said road and the first respondent was not taking any action, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶15

The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating that on verification, they found no encroachment of 10 feet of the road towards east and north side of the main road situate opposite to the Junior College and Ward No.10 as stated by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the construction was made as per the approved plan and sanctioned by the Municipality on 24.03.2009 and hence the question of taking action does not arise. However, the first respondent further stated that the third respondent is constructing the building without properly leaving the set back areas.

¶16

In the light of these facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to take necessary action in accordance with law, with regard to other violations if any made by the third respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan.

¶17

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶18

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

¶19

DATED 23^RD SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq v. The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq v. The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad

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

C. Triveni, Vs Hyderabad Metropalitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

K. Laxmipathi Raju Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Pedabaliyarasimhuni Srinivas Vs The Election Officer and Commissioner, Salur

M/s Madiha Metal Works Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited

Mudireddy Anji Reddy Vs T. Venkanna

Gayatri Apartments Welfare Association, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its