Disposed

Banoth Ammi v. The Slate of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Apr 2015WP/11545/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the non-passing of orders on a show cause notice under the AP Municipalities Act. The court directed the respondent to decide on conversion charges within two weeks; otherwise, the petitioner can proceed with construction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider petitioner's explanation and take a decision within two weeks of receipt of this order.

Banoth Ammi Vs The Slate of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11545 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not allowing the petitioner to proceed with construction of building in plot No.1-6-91 Part covered by Sy.No.287/76, situated at Gummudur Village, Narsampet road, Mahabubabad town, Warangal District, in accordance with permission issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 28.11.2014 and the show cause notice dated 31.03.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the construction of building in accordance with the approved plan.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that her husband was the owner, pattadar and possessor of land covered by Sy.No.287/76, Gummudur Village, Narsampet road, Mahabubabad town, Warangal District; after the death of her husband, her son settled an extent of Ac.2.10 gts. in her favour under a registered gift deed; she made an application to the 2^nd respondent-Mahabubabad Municipality to grant permission for construction of a house; that after enquiry, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.11.2014 granting permission for construction of a house and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,640/- towards building permission charges; that after raising the pillars upto roof level, the

¶6

2^nd respondent issued the show cause notice dated 31.03.2015 to submit her explanation, within 7 days, as to why her permission should not be cancelled. Petitioner submitted her explanation but no orders are passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for

¶8

Municipal Administration appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire material i.e., chips, sand, cement, iron is lying at the site and it is difficult to leave the same there and the petitioner and may be permitted to make further constructions, as she is ready to pay the necessary conversion charges.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that under Sections 184(1) and (3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, the 2^nd respondent-Municipality is entitled to collect necessary conversion fee and as the same is not paid, the show cause notice was issued. It is further submitted that the respondent-Authorities will consider the explanation of the petitioner and take a decision.

¶11

It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice dated 31.03.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent is without jurisdiction and the respondents are not entitled to decide the aspect of conversion charges. Since the petitioner has already filed her explanation and the entire material is dumped at the site, the respondents are obligated to take a decision immediately.

¶12

Since the petitioner stated that she will pay the necessary conversion charges, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner, in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 31.03.2015, and take a decision, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and take further action in accordance with law. If the decision is not taken within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is entitled to proceed with the construction and the same will be subject to the orders that may be passed by the respondents.

¶13

With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶14

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶15

Date: 22-04-2015

¶16

pab

Banoth Ammi v. The Slate of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banoth Ammi v. The Slate 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

A.Sampoornamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Medi Susheela Vs The State of Telangana

Ncl Alltek and Seccolor Ltd., Vs The State of A.P.

S.Krishna son of S.Lingaiah, aged 40 years, Vs .Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Banoth Hachi Vs The State of Telangana

J. Madhu Babu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary