Dismissed

Sharda Bai W/o Deendayal Agarwal, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jun 2015WP/16300/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

At the admission stage, the court disposed of a writ petition challenging illegal construction by the respondents. The court acknowledged the production of statutory notices under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, thereby answering the petitioners' grievance and disallowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage as the grievance was answered by the production of statutory notices.

Sharda Bai W/o Deendayal Agarwal, Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16300 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

With the consent of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, representing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, this writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage.

¶5

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 made illegal constructions of Two-storied building in the premises bearing Municipal No.21-3-592, situated at Panchi Buraq, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad, by encroaching upon the road margin. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.4 and 5 recently started undertaking construction of 2^nd and 3^rd Floors in the same premises. They have raised pillars, laid roofs and started constructing the walls. Alleging such illegal construction, on 23.9.2014, the petitioners claimed to have lodged a complaint before respondent Nos.1 to 3. There was no action taken on the said complaint. The petitioners lodged a complaint before the police authorities on 5.2.2015 and on 1.4.2015 a further complaint was lodged with the Assistant City Planner (3^rd respondent herein). Alleging that no action was taken on the said complaints and the illegal construction continued, this writ petition is instituted.

¶6

3. The learned Standing Counsel, representing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has produced a copy of notice

¶7

dated 4.6.2015 issued under Sections 452 (1) and 461 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”), calling upon the owner of the subject building to submit explanation against the unauthorized construction on 3^rd floor. As no reply was given by the owner of the building, a further notice was issued on 12.6.2015 under Section 452 (2) of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel submits that further action will be taken as warranted by law in due course.

¶8

4. Thus the grievance of the petitioner stood answered and the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶9

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that the official respondents shall take action in accordance with the procedure contemplated by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, without further delay, after due consideration of the explanation submitted by the alleged party or if no explanation is submitted within the time granted. The disposal of this writ petition does not bar the aggrieved party to agitate in accordance with law against the action initiated by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

¶10

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶11

__________________________ JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 24.06.2015. Msr

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.16300 of 2015

¶14

24.06.2015 Msr

Sharda Bai W/o Deendayal Agarwal, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Bai W/o Deendayal Agarwal, v. 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

Pati Bhikshapathy Vs The State of Telangana

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

V.Dastagiri ,Dudekula Vannurappagari Dastagiri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Pushpa, Vs The Government of Telangana

S. Vijaya Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gandikota Sravan Kumar, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh rep by its