Allowed

Smt. Navani Kalpana v. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC24 Mar 2017WP/10610/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demolition proceedings initiated without considering her submitted explanation. Court disposed of writ without ruling on substantive law but granted stay on coercive steps until explanation is considered and orders passed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed. No coercive steps against petitioner till explanation is disposed of. Respondents to dispose of explanation within two weeks.

Smt. Navani Kalpana Vs The Greater… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10610 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in trying to demolish shed of the petitioner even without considering the explanation submitted by her.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for 4^th respondent.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of thatched hut situated in Sy.No.966 of Hanamkonda and eking out her livelihood by doing servant maid work. While things stood thus, the 2^nd respondent herein issued a notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) directing the petitioner to remove the construction made in Sy.No.966 of Hanamkonda within seven days. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 21.10.2016 and even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without causing any enquiry or providing the opportunity of hearing, the respondent authority is making hectic efforts to demolish the premises of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted her explanation, the respondent authorities without considering the same, making efforts to demolish the premises of the petitioner.

¶8

Inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner is for consideration and disposal of her explanation/representation dated 21.10.2016, the writ petition can be disposed of without expressing any opinion directing the respondents to consider the explanation/representation dated 21.10.2016, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, if there are any violations committed by the petitioner, the respondent authority may take necessary action in accordance with law. However, till such time the

¶9

¶10

explanation/representation of the petitioner is disposed of, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶11

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WP.M.Ps if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

______________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶13

Dated:18.10.2016 Note: Issue CC forthwith. B/o. Gk

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.10610 OF 2017

¶17

Date:23.03.2017

¶18

Smt. Navani Kalpana v. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Navani Kalpana v. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

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

M. Srikanth Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Kappa Parvathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Ramu Vs The State of Telangana

Peddisetty Bansali Babu (Died) Vs Pokala Sadasivaiah

Smt. Odela Rama Vs The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Vinod Singh, Vs Mr. Anjee Reddy