Disposed

M/s. Lumbini Majestic Welfare Association v. S. Uma Devi

Telangana HC15 Dec 2015WA/1070/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that appellants must await outcome of civil suit injunction before constructing, commissioner to decide merits within twelve weeks uninfluenced by prior orders, and parties granted two weeks to file replies with material.

What did the court decide?

Construction restrained until civil suit injunction stayed/set aside; Commissioner to decide merits within 12 weeks; parties granted 2 weeks to file replies.

M/s. Lumbini Majestic Welfare Association Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

Writ Appeal No.1070 of 2015 And Writ Petition No. 29606 of 2015

¶4

Date:15.12.2015

¶5

Writ Appeal No. 1070 of 2015

¶6

Between: M/s. Lumbini Magestic Welfare Association, Hyderabad. Appellant And S. Uma Devi, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Writ Appeal No.1070 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 29606 of 2015

¶10

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

¶11

The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 4.11.2015 passed in W.P.M.P. No.38371 of 2015 in Writ Petition No. 29606 of 2015, whereby, the prayer of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for interim relief has been granted. By the impugned order, the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the 5^th respondent has been suspended. By that order, the Commissioner kept the building permit dated 29.5.2013, issued in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in abeyance in exercise of the powers under Section 454 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and directed them not to proceed with any type of construction activity over the property in dispute.

¶12

We are informed that the appellant has already filed a Civil Suit, O.S. No. 576 of 2013, and has obtained interim order of injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from raising any construction over the property in dispute. This order, according to learned counsel appearing

¶13

for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, is challenged in a Miscellaneous appeal, being, C.M.A.(SR) No. 43644 of 2015, and the appeal is pending at S.R. stage in this Court.

¶14

In this view of the matter, when we made certain suggestions, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the order that we propose to pass. Hence, we dispose of the writ appeal as well as Writ Petition No. 29606 of2015 by the following order.

¶15

“1.Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall not raise any construction unless the interim order passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.576 of 2013 is either stayed or set aside by this Court in the appeal filed by them.

¶16

2. The 5^th respondent shall consider and decide the issue taking

¶17

note of the application/objections raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as the appellant, on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that the Commissioner shall decide the application/objections on merits and uninfluenced by the order

¶18

passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.11.2015. It is open to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file their explanation/reply to the objections raised by the appellant before the Commissioner within two weeks from today. It is also open to both the parties to place the material they want

¶19

to rely upon in support of their case before the Commissioner. All

¶20

contentions on merits are kept open. While disposing of this writ appeal

¶21

we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of

¶22

the case.”

¶23

With these observations, the writ appeal as well as writ petition

¶24

are disposed of.

¶25

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand

¶26

closed.

¶27

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶28

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 15^th December, 2015

¶29

Pnb

M/s. Lumbini Majestic Welfare Association v. S. Uma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Lumbini Majestic Welfare Association v. S. Uma Devi

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

Forum for a better Hyderabad, Vs State of Telangana

T L Nayan Kumar Reddy Vs Secty Home Dept Hyd and 2 Others

Sama Babu, Vs The State of Telangana

The Weights and Measures Repairers Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.Srisailam Goud Son of late Jangaiah Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Swapna Hanumanthu, Vs Namballa Satya Deepthi