In a writ petition challenging interference with land possession, this court disposed of the matter by directing the respondent corporation to consider a pending representation and maintain status quo for three weeks.
Direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the representation within 3 weeks; parties to maintain status quo until then.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18282 of 2015
Dated : 13.07.2015
Between:
Syed Muzaffar, S/o.Syed Omer, Aged about 40 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.4-8-138/6 & 7, Hyderguda, Attapur, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
.. Petitioner
State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 2 others
.. Respondents
This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18282 of 2015
ORDER :
The petitioner claims to have purchased land to an extent of Ac.8.18 guntas in Survey No.335/1 of Qayam Nagar, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District, under absolute Agreement of sale dated 23.07.2012. With an intention to develop the said property for real estate purpose, when the petitioner was undertaking the work of cleaning and leveling the land, the subordinate authorities of the 2nd respondentCorporation, were visiting the site and threatening the petitioner to stop the leveling work and were trying to remove the material placed by him over the subject land. The petitioner sought for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned land and also consequential direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.
2. When the matter is taken up for consideration learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the representation dated 24.06.2015 submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Rajendranagar Circle (2nd respondent) ventilating his grievance, and sought for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representation. The counsel for petitioner also filed a memo enclosing a copy of the said representation.
3. Learned Standing counsel submits that if a direction be issued for disposal of the representation, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.
4. Having regard to the said submissions, since a representation said to have been submitted on 24.06.2015 is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders as warranted by law on the said representation within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till then the parties are directed to maintain status-quo obtaining as on today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J
13th July, 2015.
Rds
Syed Muzaffar
State of Telangana
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
