Disposed

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu Miya v. The Proddatur Municipality

Telangana HC10 Aug 2015WP/25068/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this short order, the single-judge Division Bench disposed of the writ petition filed by a property owner aggrieved by alleged interference with his construction. The court directed the respondent Municipality not to interfere with the petitioner's construction activity consequent to the building permission granted on 30.03.2015, ensuring the petitioner follows the sanctioned plan, provided the

What did the court decide?

Directed the response Municipality not to interfere with the petitioner's construction activity consequent to the building permission granted on 30.03.2015, if the permission is not rescinded, and to

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.25068 of 2015

¶4

Between :

¶5

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha S/o.Lalu Miya, Aged 43 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.23/419, Islampuram Masjeed Street, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District. .. Petitioner and The Proddatur Municipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. .. Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 10.08.2015

¶6

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶8

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.25068 of 2015

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The petitioner claims to be the owner of building bearing old D.No.14/197 and the new D.No.11/348, Main Bazar, Proddatur Municipality and Town, YSR Kadapa District. The said property was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 18.12.2014. The petitioner applied for building permission on 19.01.2015 and accordingly the permission was granted on 30.03.2015 to construct shop rooms and also building. The petitioner started construction as per the sanctioned building plan. However, the authorities of the respondent-Municipality are interfering with the construction without any justification and reason. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is compelled to file this writ petition.

¶13

2. Learned Standing counsel fairly submits that the Municipality is not interfering with the construction of the petitioner and it is a false allegation made by the petitioner.

¶14

3. Having regard to the respective submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-Municipality, not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner consequent to the building permission granted on 30.03.2015, if the said building permission is not rescinded and shall ensure that the petitioner is not deviating from the sanctioned plan. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶17

10^th August, 2015. Rds

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu Miya v. The Proddatur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sharfuddin Basha, S/o. Lalu Miya v. The Proddatur Municipality

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

B.Tirupathamma, Vs Dr. S.K Joshi

Jagadeesh, Vs Sri Silender Kumar Joshi

Smt. Sumeera Begum, Vs The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Bagudu Murali, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.V. Chalapathi Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary