Dismissed

Smt M.Rajamani W/o Sri Sreeram Reddy v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Dec 2015PIL/192/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ relief for responding authorities' alleged refusal to initiate an enquiry into unauthorized development in Nadergul Village. Having accepted counsel's submission that action was taken post-an earlier order, this Court disposed of the PIL as not pressed but directed the Registrar to refund the petitioners' deposit.

What did the court decide?

Ruling that the PIL is not pressed; directing the Registrar to refund the deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners.

Smt M.Rajamani W/o Sri Sreeram Reddy Vs The state of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.192 of 2015

¶5

Dt:28.12.2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.M.Rajamani and another.

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And The State of Telangana and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶12

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 192 of 2015

¶13

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioners, in the instant PIL, seek the following reliefs:

¶16

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus-

¶17

(a) declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 5 in not initiating enquiry in accordance with the statutory provisions stipulated under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 in the matter of unauthorised development in Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary and in complete abdication of their statutory jurisdiction under the Act;

¶18

(b) consequently direct respondents 1 to 5 to initiate enquiry under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 in the matter of unauthorised development in Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district;

¶19

(c) further be pleased to issue requisite directions/guidelines to respondents 1 to 5 to frame necessary rules and regulations so as to enable and ensure requisite compliance of the mandatory provisions stipulated under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 and other allied legislations in the matter of unauthorised development of land;

¶20

(d) and further be pleased to pass such other further

¶21

order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶22

Mr.Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4, on instructions, submits that in view of the order passed by this Court on 07.09.2015, respondent authority has taken action under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 against unauthorised constructions/developments and they shall take the action initiated by them to its logical conclusion. He further submits that if either petitioners or any other person brings any unauthorised construction to their notice, they shall initiate similar action against those constructions/developments in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. His statement is recorded and accepted.

¶23

In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this PIL.

¶24

PIL is disposed of as not pressed.

¶25

Insofar as registration of documents in respect of unauthorised properties is concerned, we observe that the Registering Authorities should be careful while registering the documents in respect of the unauthorised properties within the jurisdiction of Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- that has been deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of the order, dated 27.07.2015.

¶27

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶29

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Dt:28.12.2015 kdl

Smt M.Rajamani W/o Sri Sreeram Reddy v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M.Rajamani W/o Sri Sreeram Reddy v. The state of Telangana

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

P.Jayabharath Reddy, S/o. P.T. Veera Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Jeediginjala Venkatesh, Vs The State of Telangana

Forum for a better Hyderabad, Vs State of Telangana

Karri Venkat Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Forum for Good Governance Vs The State of Telangana

P. Narendhar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Diya Sur, Vs State of Telangana

L.v.Ramana S/o. Late Satyanarayana Vs The Union of India

G.Ashok Varma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Deputy Registrar of

B. Kishore S/o Satyanarayana Vs The Registrar Jawaharlal Nehru Technological

Kothapalli Sivanarayana, Vs Govt of a.P., rep by its Secretary Revenue (Excise.Ii) Dept

Ch. Rajagpala Rao, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Kotha Jagadish Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sunkara Gangaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh