Disposed

Borogalla Mallaiah Sio Yellaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2015WP/40057/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition filed for Mandamus seeking to declare the respondent's actions of inspecting construction site and interfering with construction illegal. The court held respondent cannot interfere unless construction deviates from sanctioned plan.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; impugned order quashed; directions issued regarding inspection and interference.

Borogalla Mallaiah Sio Yellaiah, Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40057 of 2015

¶2

Date:10.12.2015

¶3

Between: Borogalla Mallaiah, S/o Yellaiah

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And:

¶6

The State of Telangana, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and another.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.Buchi Babu

¶9

Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Admn. (AP)

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the petitioner’s construction of the building under permit, vide Roc.No.480/MC/ 2015, B.A.No.41, dated 05.9.2015, in premises bearing House Nos.20-518, 20-578/1 and 20578/2 of Gandhi Nagar Road, Huzurabad Nagara Panchayat and Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

At the hearing, Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned

¶13

Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that on the complaints given by the petitioner’s neighbours, the officials of respondent No.2 have inspected the construction site and that no interference with the petitioner’s construction activity has been caused by them. He is, however, unable to state as to whether the petitioner has been raising the constructions in the above-mentioned site in deviation of the sanctioned plan.

¶14

In my opinion, so long as the construction being undertaken by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, respondent No.2 cannot interfere with such construction activity. While there can be no objection for the periodical inspection of the petitioner’s site by the officials of respondent No.2, such inspection shall not result in obstruction of and interference with the construction activity of the petitioner unless he is found constructing the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. In such event, respondent No.2 shall issue a notice to the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and take appropriate action. Conversely, if the construction undertaken by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with such construction.

¶15

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.51712 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 10^th December, 2015 DR

Borogalla Mallaiah Sio Yellaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Borogalla Mallaiah Sio Yellaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. T.V.K. Murthy S/o Sri. T.G.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana - Rep. by its Principal

Smt. Bolukonda Kalavathi, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Kareem Khan Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

M.Damodar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Anil Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its