Disposed

M Raghava Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2018WP/2532/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a compact order in a writ petition where the petitioner challenged a letter doubting title to subject land. The court held the title inquiry and registration status objection as beyond jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent was directed to decide the building permission application strictly within three weeks without regard to title or registration. The petition was disposed of with these direct

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for building permission strictly in accordance with law within three weeks without reference to title or registration of the agr

M Raghava Rao Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2532 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dt.19-05-2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent doubting the title of petitioner to the subject property and contending that the subject land is Government land.

¶4

Petitioner contends that the 2^nd respondent had no business to decide title and that petitioner had succeeded in the litigation against the State upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.325-326 of 2015, which was decided on 13-01-2015 and therefore the impugned endorsement has to be set aside.

¶5

Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

¶6

appearing for 2^nd respondent states on instructions that the 2^nd respondent has been advised to withdraw the impugned proceedings dt.19-05-2017 and 23-11-2017 and that proceedings in that regard will be issued shortly. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent will consider petitioner’s application for building permission strictly in accordance with law without reference to title to the property keeping in view of the above Supreme Court Judgment within three weeks from today and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

¶7

As regards the other objection that the Development Agreement submitted by petitioner is unregistered one, it cannot be denied that it

¶8

MSR,J W.P.No.2532 of 2018

¶9

¶10

is beyond the purview of the 2^nd respondent to go into the said aspect and the said observation is wholly without jurisdiction.

¶11

Therefore, without reference to title to the property and to the fact that the Development Agreement is as unregistered one, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider petitioner’s application for building permission strictly in accordance with law within three (03) weeks from today and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

¶12

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

¶13

costs.

¶14

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 17-04-2018
Vsv

M Raghava Rao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Raghava Rao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dappu Balaiah Vs State of Telangana

Dandu Pochavva Vs the State of Tg

Araveti Bharathi W/o Venugopal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pabba Balaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, rep., by its Secretary

Jaggi Nagaraju , Kappati Nagaraiu, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of T.S.

S.K.Musthafa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal