Disposed

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Aug 2015WP/14974/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged illegal construction of a compound wall on his land by respondent authorities despite a representation seeking its cessation. The court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.05.2015 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.14974 of 2015

¶5

Between :

¶6

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 11-08-2015

¶12

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No

¶15

may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

¶16

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No

¶17

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

¶18

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No

¶19

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.14974 of 2015

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of 6290 square

¶24

yards bearing M.C.H.No.2-2-1130 in Sy.No.41/1 and 41/2 situated at Amberpet village, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. On 12-05-2015, the petitioner noticed that construction was being carried out in his premises. It is averred that when petitioner enquired about the same, he came to know that the respondent officials were carrying out illegal construction in his premises. They refused to stop the illegal construction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent-authorities on 18-05-2015 to stop the construction work of the compound wall in his premises. Alleging that the representation submitted by the petitioner is not acted upon, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

When the matter is taken up, both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to expeditiously dispose of the representations dated 18.05.2015, submitted by the petitioner.

¶26

Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.05.2015 and pass appropriate orders as warranted under law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶28

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶29

11-08-2015

¶30

nvl

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Masihuddin Khan S/o Mohammed Zaheeruddin Khan v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bagudu Murali, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.V. Chalapathi Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu Miya Vs The Proddatur Municipality

Jupudy Venkata Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Mohan, Vs The State of Telangana

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana