Disposed

T Yakaiah v. A.P. High Court Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Housin

Telangana HC6 Sept 2017WA/1288/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal arising from an interim order protecting a petitioner's possession against GHMC interference. Counsel for the petitioner conceded that construction was without prior permission and agreed not to proceed further. The Court disposed of the appeal with an undertaking from the petitioner to seek prior GHMC permission before any construction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal disposed; petitioner directed not to make further construction without prior permission from GHMC.

T Yakaiah Vs A.P. High Court Employees… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶2

W.A.M.P.Nos.2353 and 2352 of 2017

¶3

and/in Writ Appeal No.1288 of 2017

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶5

As it is contended that appellants 1 and 2 are no longer members of the Society, leave to prefer an appeal is granted only to the 3^rd appellant. The petition, filed to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the order impugned in this appeal, is allowed. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the interim order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.36545 of 2017 in W.P.No.29366 of 2017 dated 31.08.2017 directing the GHMC not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitionerSociety until further orders.

¶6

While the order under appeal required the GHMC not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment, it did not permit the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner to proceed with construction. The present Writ Appeal has been filed contending that the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was proceeding with construction under the protection of the interim order under appeal, without obtaining prior permission from the GHMC.

¶7

While initially Sri K.Chidambaram, Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, contended that all that was being constructed by them was a small shed to run their office, he later conceded that the exercise of construction of the shed was undertaken without obtaining prior permission from the GHMC. It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue any further, or to examine the contentions urged by Learned Counsel on either side on merits, as Sri K.Chidambaram, Learned Counsel, undertakes that the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner would not make any further construction

¶8

¶9

without the prior approval of the GHMC, or till the disposal of the Writ Petition, whichever is earlier.

¶10

In the light of the submission now made by Sri K.Chidambaram, Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, the Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner not to make any further construction without obtaining prior permission from the GHMC. We make it clear that we have not interfered with the order under appeal in so far as the GHMC has been directed not to interfere with the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s possession and enjoyment. The 3^rd appellant herein is hereby impleaded as the third respondent in the Writ Petition. It is also made it clear that neither the order passed by us, nor the order under appeal or the pendency of the Writ Petition, shall disable the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner from seeking permission of the GHMC to make construction; and, on such permission being granted, to proceed with construction in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ

¶12

J. UMA DEVI, J.

¶13

Date:06.09.2017. cs

T Yakaiah v. A.P. High Court Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Housin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Yakaiah v. A.P. High Court Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Housin

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

Krishna District Olympic Association, Vs The Union of India

A P Olympic Assn, Hyd Vs Prl.Secy., Min of Youth Affrs and Sports Auth, Delhi and 12 Othr

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl. Secretary, Vs Mabbu Chandrasekhar Reddy

M/s. K.K. Translogix Pvt.Ltd., 9-21-17/2 and 3, Flat Nos. 103 Vs Canara Bank, Gajuwaka Branch, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s New Morning Star Travels

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Surgicals and Pharrna, Vs The Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer