Disposed

Rupanagudi Sujith Kumar Reddy, v. The Nandyal Municipality

Telangana HC16 Mar 2017WP/6067/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this combined writ appeal and petition, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Nandyal Municipality to inspect alleged construction deviations and pass an order under Section 217 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 within three months, restraining further construction pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality, to take action under Section 217 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 within three months and restraining further construction until final orders are

Rupanagudi Sujith Kumar Reddy, Vs The Nandyal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶3

Writ Appeal No.300 of 2017 & Writ Petition No.6067 of 2017

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan}

¶5

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the ad interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.7449 of 2017 in W.P.No.6067 of 2017 dated 22.02.2017 directing the appellant-2^nd respondent not to make any further construction adjacent to the house of the respondent-writ petitioner till she left setbacks towards the house of the petitioner.

¶6

Sri B.Sesibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-2^nd respondent, would submit that the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality has the power, under Section 217(1)(b)(i) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act’), to make such alterations as may be specified in the said notice with the object of brining the work in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Sri Md. Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for the Nandyal Municipality, would refer to Section 217(3) of the Act to submit that the Commissioner has the power to confirm the notice subject to such modifications as he may think fit.

¶7

All the counsel i.e Sri B.Seshibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-2^nd respondent, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, and Sri Md. Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for the Nandyal Municipality, would agree that an order be passed disposing of the writ petition itself directing the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality to take action in terms of Section 217(1)(b) of the Act within a specified time frame.

¶8

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality to take action for the alleged deviations made by the appellant-2^nd respondent in accordance with Section 217(1)(b) of the Act, after giving the appellant-2^nd respondent an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed by the Commissioner in terms of Section 217 of the Act, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

Till the Commissioner passes final orders under Section 217(3) of the Act, after putting the appellant-2^nd respondent on notice under Section 217(1) of the Act and after giving her an opportunity of being heard, the appellant-2^nd respondent shall not make any further construction. In case the respondent-writ petitioner makes a written request in this regard, the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality shall also afford him an opportunity of being heard.

¶10

Both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶12

(DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)

¶13

16^th March, 2017 JSU

¶14

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶16

Writ Appeal No.300 of 2017 & Writ Petition No.6067 of 2017

¶17

Date: 16.03.2017

¶18

JSU

Rupanagudi Sujith Kumar Reddy, v. The Nandyal Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupanagudi Sujith Kumar Reddy, v. The Nandyal Municipality

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

Chimata venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Pula Mabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal

K. Keshava Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Sanju , Sanjay Ladda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Suggala Sai Kumari Vs Sri Gandham Chandrudu

Maniklal Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., .by its Secretary