Disposed

Sri M. Rajaiah Gupta v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC25 Jun 2015WP/18697/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging alleged illegal construction by a neighbor without merits. It directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's complaint lodged on 22.05.2015 and pass an order within three weeks. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the complaint lodged on 22.05.2015 and pass appropriate order within three weeks.

Sri M. Rajaiah Gupta Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18697 of 2015

¶3

Dated : 25.06.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri M.Rajaiah Gupta, S/o.Sri M. Rajalingam Gupta, Aged 80 yrs, Occu : Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o.1-74 to 1-76, Taranagar, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R. District, State of Telangana-19

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following :

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.18697 of 2015

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

The petitioner claims to be resident of house bearing No.1-77 & 1-78, Taranagar Village, Chandanagar Gram Panchayat, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner alleges that the neighbour of the petitioner is constructing a multistoried building after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation, but the building is constructed in violation of the statutory Rules, and without observing the minimum required set backs and as he is digging very deep to build a cellar, there is a threat to the structural stability of the petitioner’s property and that the pillars are raised very near to the petitioner’s building. Apprehending such danger, on account of illegal construction undertaken by the neighbour, the petitioner claimed to have submitted a complaint on 22.05.2015 to the 1^st respondent, the copies of which were also marked to Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Sherlingampally Mandal, R.R. District and Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Chandanagar, Sherlingampally Mandal, Circle-12, R.R. District, so far no action has been taken.

¶14

2. Learned Standing counsel representing the respondentCorporation submits that since a complaint is made by the petitioner on 22.05.2015, after granting the building permission, the same shall be considered in due course.

¶15

3. Having regard to the said submission, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-XII, West Zone, Chandanagar, Serlingampally, R.R. District (2^nd respondent) to consider the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 22.05.2015 and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner as warranted by law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event said complaint is accepted and further proceedings are initiated, the 4^th respondent shall be accorded due opportunity in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶18

25^th June, 2015 Note : Issue C.C. by tomorrow.

¶19

B/o.

¶20

Rds

Sri M. Rajaiah Gupta v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M. Rajaiah Gupta v. The Commissioner

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

K. Pushpa, Vs The Government of Telangana

S. Vijaya Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sharda Bai W/o Deendayal Agarwal, Vs State of Telangana

K.Dhananjaya Naidu Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

L. Narender Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal