Disposed

Smt. Dr. Talipineni Katyayani Swapna, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jul 2015WP/20590/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought building permission. Court relied on prior orders directing the municipality to consider the application pending petitioner's compliance with municipal act sections and giving an undertaking against future claims if a land grabbing case goes against her.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to consider application within 8 weeks subject to statutory compliance and undertaking.

Smt. Dr. Talipineni Katyayani Swapna, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶4

Present

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.20590 of 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Dr. Talipineni KAtyayani Swapna, W/o. Talipineni Kamalakar Naidu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. 6-3-1111/19, Nishanth Bagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.20590 of 2015

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for respondents 2 and 3, state that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2454 of 2015.

¶17

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 the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12861 of 2007. The operative portion of the order in W.P.No.8691 of 2008 reads as under:

¶18

“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.”

¶19

3. In view of the direction contained in the order passed by

¶20

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 Corporation 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 thereon be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

4. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶23

Date: 8^th July, 2015

¶24

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.20590 of 2015

¶27

Date: 8^th July, 2015

¶28