Disposed

P. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Ramesh Pershad, v. State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary

Telangana HC18 Sept 2017WP/30054/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the cancellation of building permission. The Court directed the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice after considering the petitioner's explanation within three weeks, pending which no interference is allowed. The Court clarified that action must be taken if water is drained onto roads or neighboring lands.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice by hearing the petitioner and considering her explanation within three weeks; no interference pending. Clarified

P. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Ramesh Pershad, Vs State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.30054 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Standing counsel, for the respondent Municipal Corporation.

¶4

According to the petitioner, the respondent Municipal Corporation granted building permission in her favour vide permit No.27668/HO/CZ/Cir-10/2013, dated 05.09.2013. The respondent Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice vide Lr.No.20900/03/03/2013/HO/985, dated 18.08.2017, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the building permission should not be cancelled under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶5

According to the petitioner, the said show cause notice was received by her on 28.08.2017 and immediately on 29.08.2017, she submitted her explanation. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition precisely is that without considering the explanation offered by her and without passing any orders on the said show cause notice, the respondent Corporation authorities are interfering with the construction of the petitioner despite the existence of valid permit.

¶6

¶7

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner is draining out the water on the road and into the lands of the neighbours.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 18.08.2017, by taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner on 29.08.2017 and after hearing her, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Pending consideration of the same, there shall be no interference by the respondent Municipal Corporation authorities. It is further made clear that if the petitioner drains out the water on the road and into the lands of the adjacent land owners, appropriate action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation authorities.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶11

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶12

Date: 18.09.2017 ES

P. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Ramesh Pershad, v. State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Pushpa Bai W/o Late Ramesh Pershad, v. State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary

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

Balusu Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Abdul Hameed Khan Vs The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Kakani Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.V.V. Surya Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Omar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Annan Granites, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary