Disposed

Chenchireddy Gari Thippa Reddy, v. Dharmavaram Municipality

Telangana HC23 Apr 2015WP/11690/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an order disposing of the writ petition, directed the Municipality not to demolish the petitioners' structures without issuing a notice or following the due procedure of law, accepting the officials' submission that legal steps will be followed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent not to demolish the property of the petitioners without following due procedure as envisaged under law.

Chenchireddy Gari Thippa Reddy, Vs Dharmavaram… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11690 OF 2015

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring that respondents 1 and 2 cannot demolish the structures of the petitioners in D.Nos.9/496-1 and 9/496-2, situated at Sreedevi Theatre Road, Dharmavaram Municipality, Anantapur District, without issuing any notice on initiating due process of law and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the structures of the petitioners.

¶5

The case of the petitioners is that they were allotted house sites by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharmavaram vide proceedings dated 30.09.1995 and they also obtained a loan from Cooperative Town Bank, Dharmavaram and constructed shops thereon after urban agglomeration without an approved plan and later the said shops were regularized vide proceedings of the Commissioner dated 18.11.2013. Now, the 2^nd respondent-Municipality is trying to demolish the said shops without issuing any notice, as envisaged under law. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-Municipality, on instructions, submits that the 2^nd respondent is taking steps for the purpose of road widening and there is no actual threat for the property of the petitioners and that before taking any steps against the property of the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent will follow due procedure, as envisaged under law.

¶8

Placing on record the said submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent not to demolish the property of the petitioners, without following due procedure, as envisaged under law.

¶9

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶10

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶11

23.04.2015 pab

Chenchireddy Gari Thippa Reddy, v. Dharmavaram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenchireddy Gari Thippa Reddy, v. Dharmavaram Municipality

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

Banoth Ammi Vs The Slate of Telangana

Banoth Hachi Vs The State of Telangana

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

Licensed Engineers Association of Guntur, Vs The Government of Ap, (Ma and Ud Department)

B. Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Harinath, S/o. K. Neelakanta Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal