Single judge disposed of a writ petition regarding construction damage. The court noted interim directions were issued and respondents complied, allowing the petition to be dismissed with no expenses.
Petition dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1950 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1 and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Notice of respondent No.4 even in the same address with all details sufficiently returned as insufficient to locate. In fact, without even serving notice to respondent No.4, the writ petition can be disposed of from hearing of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
hearing the writ petition on 24.01.2018, which reads as follows:
“The respondents 2 and 3 to see that any excavation by the 4th respondent in the proposed construction shall not cause damage to the neighbouring existing building of the petitioner meantime.
Nos.2 and 3 that pursuant to the direction they have issued notice to respondent No.4, who started construction without even intimation to them that any proposed construction shall be as per the permission and shall not cause any damage to the neighbouring existing buildings including that of the 4th respondent and they are going to take steps to see that the building being constructed pursuant to the plan and without violation and without inconvenience to the neighbouring building owners, much less damage to the extent possible.
2
keep it pending from the prayer in the writ petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 22nd February 2018
mar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of on the ground of interim directions having been followed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3
Respondent No. 4
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
