Partly allowed

Shaik Faheem v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC20 Mar 2014WP/32928/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while the 4th respondent was prima facie not encroaching on the road based on building permissions, respondents 1 to 3 were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

Shaik Faheem Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32928 of 2010

¶2

DATED: 20.03.2014

Between:

Shaik Faheem

... Petitioner

And

The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad & others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32928 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing

¶13

counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶14

2. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. When the 4^th respondent started huge construction adjacent to his house by allegedly encroaching the existing road, which is used by him and all the locality people, he submitted a representation dated 14.12.2010 to respondents 1 to 3 and when the same was not considered, the present writ petition was filed.

¶15

3. Even after three years, respondents 1 to 3 did not file counteraffidavit.

¶16

4. The 4^th respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the premises number and survey number has been incorrectly stated by the petitioner and the 4^th respondent has obtained building permit order for premises bearing Nos.10-5-383/55/B to E,10-5-391/50/B, 105-391/50/A, 10-5-391/10/A, 10-5-391/10/1/D & E, 10-5-385/35/A, 10-5385/3/A, 10-5-39/B/4, 10-5-391/5/3, 10-5-391/5/4, 10-5-391/5/4/A & 105-391/54/1 in Sy.No.129/77. The said building permit was sanctioned for residential apartment with 3 cellars, ground plus upper (5) floors for residential flats. The 4^th respondent has not encroached upon existing road and was not causing any inconvenience to the petitioner. The 4^th respondent and others are carrying on construction of residential flats in the said land after obtaining permission from the GHMC, vide Permit No.3213/HO/CZ/Cir-7/2009 dated 25.06.2011. He further stated that a registered development agreement was entered on 25.05.2009 between the 4^th respondent and Sri Krishna Ventures Pvt. Ltd., and the said Developer has been developing the property.

¶17

5. In view of the averments made by the 4^th respondent in the counter-affidavit, this Court is prima-facie satisfied that there is no

¶18

encroachment made by the 4^th respondent in the alleged road. However, in view of the complaint alleged to have been made by the petitioner on 14.12.2010, respondents 1 to 3 are duty bound to consider the complaint and take action in accordance with law.

¶19

6. In the circumstances, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2010 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶21

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶22

Date: 20.03.2014 BSS

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 3

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.32928 of 2010

¶25

Date: 20.03.2014

¶26

BSS

Shaik Faheem v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Faheem v. The Commissioner

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

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Ltd. Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Kondaveeti Venkatakrishna Mohan, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Iron Industries Ltd. Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Secretary, Excise Department

Sevakaula Narahari Vs The Station House Officer

Siddala Ravi Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its