Allowed

Chimata venu Gopal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2017WP/9035/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's application for building permission within eight weeks, subject to statutory requirements and an undertaking regarding potential loss in pending litigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's application for building permission within eight weeks, subject to Section 428 of GHMC Act, 1955, and an undertaking against claiming costs if litigat

Chimata venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 9035 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration

¶5

(Telangana) appearing for 1^st respondent, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondents 2 & 5, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) appearing for respondents 3 & 4.

¶6

Petitioner’s grievance in this Writ Petition is that the respondents are not granting construction permission in spite of the fact that he had applied for permission.

¶7

Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, states that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District had issued a letter dt.31.10.2013 addressing the Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, GHMC stating that the subject land is being litigated by the State in LGC No.29 of 2006 and not to grant building permissions.

¶8

It is not disputed that in the LGC, initially an order was granted in I.A.No.446 of 2006 on 31.08.2006 prohibiting alienation and permitting constructions by only persons having approved plans but the said order was set

¶9

¶10

aside by this Court in W.P.No.3973 of 2007 and batch on 02.03.2007. In W.P.No.12861 of 2007 which is arising out of a claim by a person whose permission for construction in the subject land was rejected, this Court had passed orders on 16.11.2007 directing the respondents to consider grant of building permission, on the petitioner satisfying the requirements of Section 428 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and giving an undertaking that in the event of LGC, pending before the Special Court instituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, has been decided against them, petitioner would not claim any equities or costs of the building constructed by him.

¶11

Following the above orders, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission in the subject land within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to satisfying requirement of Section 428 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also giving an undertaking that the petitioner would not claim equities or costs of the building construction, in the event LGC has been decided against him, without reference to the letter dt.31.10.2013 of the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

¶13

6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶14

any, shall stand dismissed.

¶15

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶16

Date: 15.03.2017 usd

Chimata venu Gopal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chimata venu Gopal v. The State of Telangana

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

A. Balaprasad Singh Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M. Muniyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Syed Ismail, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep by its

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

K. Keshava Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Majid Jamia Mohammedia Masjid (Ahie-Hadis), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh