Disposed

Jayanthi Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Nov 2016WP/37394/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice from Rayadurgam Municipality directed to remove a building on alleged encroachment grounds. Crooked Court directed the Notice to be treated as a show cause notice, allowed 15 days for explanation, and maintained status quo pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to treat notice as show cause notice, submit explanation within 15 days; status quo maintained.

Jayanthi Subramanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITON No. 37394 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the first respondent and Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶4

Challenging the notice issued by the second respondentRayadurgam Municpality dated 27.10.2016, petitioner approached this court by this writ petition.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that under the impugned notice the respondent directed her to remove some building portion at Jayanthi Medical Store, 11-1-20, Vinayaka Circle (G+2) on the ground that the same was encroached the road.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed her building on her own land and she has not occupied the Government land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no notice was given directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that the petitioner may treat the communication dated 27.10.2016 as a show cause notice, and that as and when she submits her explanation, the same will be considered by the respondents.

¶8

Considering the fair submission on behalf of the second respondent-Municipality, petitioner shall treat the notice dated

¶9

¶10

27.10.2016 issued by the second respondent as a show cause notice and submit her explanation within fifteen days from today, which shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed thereon by the second respondent within fifteen days thereafter. Till passing of appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, status quo in all respects be maintained by both the parties.

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________________________
JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
November 1, 2016
Note:-
Furnish copy in two days.
{B/o}
Gk.

¶13

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶15

WRIT PETITON No. 37394 OF 2016

¶16

Date:01.11.2016

¶17

Jayanthi Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanthi Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

M. Venkata Satya Nagavalli Tayaru, Vs The State of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Edlapadu Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Principal

M/s Tanmayi Designs Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Kings Enterprises, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Yellappa S/o late Chandrappa Vs The Divisional Electrical Engineer

Pilla Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh