Disposed

Ravipati Venkateswar Rao v. The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC17 Aug 2015WP/26032/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition by the owners of house plots in Venkateswara Hills Housing Colony alleging that the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority was attempting to block a 40 feet wide road with a compound wall, causing grave prejudice. The court directed the authority to examine the grievance within three weeks and refrain from blocking the road simultaneously.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondent Authority to look into the grievance, examine the issue in detail, and pass appropriate orders within three weeks; directing the Authority not to block the road for four weeks

Ravipati Venkateswar Rao Vs The Kakatiya Urban… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.26032 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The petitioners claim to be the owners of house plots of various extents in Venkateswara Hills Housing Colony situate in Sy.No.938 of Shyampet, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District. The petitioners allege that there is an existing 40 feet wide road, which connects the house plots of petitioners to the main road. While so, the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority is now seeking to construct compound wall around their property and in the process they are also seeking to block the road which petitioners have been using for long time. If the road is blocked, grave prejudice would be caused to petitioners and they have no other access to reach to the main road from the above colony. Thus, ventilating their grievance, on 30-06-2015, a representation was submitted to the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, but so far no orders are passed and on the contrary, the contractor engaged by the Respondent – Authority is undertaking digging work to construct the compound wall.

¶5

2. Having regard to the fact that the representation is already submitted by petitioners ventilating their grievance, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent –

¶6

Authority to look into the grievance of petitioners, examine the issue in detail and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For a period of four week or till orders are passed on the representation, whichever is earlier, the Respondent – Authority shall not block the existing 40 feet wide road which connects the house plots of petitioners to the main road, if the compound wall is already not constructed and there exists 40 feet road as contended by petitioners.

¶7

3. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J.

¶9

August 17, 2015. skmr

Ravipati Venkateswar Rao v. The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravipati Venkateswar Rao v. The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

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.Hari Kishan Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Tippabattina Brahmmaiah Vs Smt. Praveena Devi

R. Dinesh Kumar S/o Ramakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

Gowdu Veera Babu, S/o. Apparao, Vs The State of A.P.

Chikkam Annapoorna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. P.Jyotshna Vs The Principal Secretary