Disposed

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC7 Jul 2015WP/16359/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged illegal water connections by encroachers on the petitioner's land, the court directed the respondent Board to dispose of a submitted representation within four weeks if the petitioner furnishes details of the occupants. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit details of illegal occupants for a fresh representation; Board to act within four weeks. Pet pending, closed without order as to costs.

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16359 of 2015

¶3

Date: 07.07.2015

¶4

Between: P.Vikaram Kumar, s/o. late P.Prabhakar Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occu:Business, r/o.16-2-751/S/4, Sai Ganga Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. AND The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and another.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16359 of 2015

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Petitioner claims to be the owner of property to an extent of 3600 square yards in Sy.No.57 of Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad. Some extent of the property is in illegal occupation of unconcerned persons. Aggrieved by such illegal occupation, petitioner instituted O.S.No.1194 of 2008 before VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Alleging that illegal encroachers have submitted application for sanction of water connections, representation was submitted on 16.07.2009 to the General Manager, Single Window Cell, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (2^nd respondent). Having considered the representation, the Board has informed the petitioner that the application submitted by the illegal occupants were rejected as they did not file any proof of their title. This is clear from the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25416 of 2010 dated 12.03.2014. Petitioner now alleges that the very same persons are illegally using the water connections and they are now seeking regularization of the said tap connections and same cannot be granted. Petitioner claims to have submitted a representation on 05.06.2015 and alleging that the said representation was not disposed of, this writ petition is instituted.

¶11

2. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Board submits that the Board is unable to consider the representation of the petitioner since the representation lacks essential details regarding the person who are illegally using the water connections and unless such details are furnished, it is not possible to the respondent Board to deal with the matter.

¶12

3. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would advise the petitioner to submit a representation giving details of the persons who are in illegal occupation of the said premises and have been using the water connections illegally. As and when such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Board shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶13

4. Having regard to the same, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶15

Date : 07.07.2015 kkm

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.16359 of 2015

¶18

Date:07.07.2015

¶19

kkm

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, v. The Managing Director

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

Perla SambaMurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mawaram Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kothapalli Saibaba, Vs The State of Telangana

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala Suryanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Ali Akber, Vs State of Telangana

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary