Disposed

M/s. Darshan Constructions, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jun 2015WP/17959/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge disposed of the writ petition seeking building permission, relying on the decision in W.P.No.2454 of 2015. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the application subject to the petitioner satisfying legal requirements and providing an undertaking not to claim equities if the pending LGC case goes against her.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to give undertaking not to claim equities; Corporation directed to consider application within four weeks.

M/s. Darshan Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17959 of 2015

¶3

Dated : 19.06.2015

¶4

Between: M/s. Darshan Constructions, Rep., by the Managing Director, Smt P. Padma, W/o.P. Srinivasa Reddy, Aged 37 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.Flat No.1/201, Sai’s Dream Castel, Plot No.2/124 & 123, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

This Court made the following :

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.17959 of 2015

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

When the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel representing Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, states that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2454 of 2015.

¶13

2. Concerning the same issue, in W.P.No.8691 of 2008, the learned Single Judge, has taken into consideration a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3973 of 2007 and batch, and the judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12861 of 2007. The operative portion of W.P.No.8691 of

¶14

2008 order reads as under :

¶15

“ Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar for granting building permission subject to the petitioner satisfying the requirements of Section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to grant of building permission. However, in the event of LGC case, which is pending before the Special Court, being decided against him, the petitioner shall not claim equities or compensation for cost of the building constructed by him. The respondents shall accordingly consider the application of the petitioner for granting building permission.”

¶16

3. In view of the direction contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, striking a balance between both the sides, it becomes appropriate for the Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner also, subject to her satisfying the requirements of law and in particular that of Sections 428, 429 and 431 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and subject to her giving an undertaking to the 2^nd respondent – Corporation that she will not claim any equities in the matter in the event the land grabbing case, which is pending before the Special Court, is decided against her, at any later point of time. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner may be taken up for consideration and appropriate orders there on be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

4. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

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

¶19

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 19^th June, 2015 Rds

M/s. Darshan Constructions, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Darshan Constructions, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Matke Nagaiah Dharma shala Vs State of Telangana

John Victor Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Hemanth Kumar Vs Mr. Keshav Desiraju, IAS

Dr.T.K.Srinivasulu, Vs Smt.Gauri Kumar