Dismissed

Mr.S.Irfan Jaffer, Banjara HILLS,HYDERABAD-500034 v. Chief Commissioner, G.H.M.C., and 4 Others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2018WP/7005/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed seeking directions to remove illegal construction and encroachment by the 3rd respondent near flat No.101 in Uma Park Side Apartment. Ruling that disputed questions of law were involved, the Court dismissed the petition and reserved remedies under law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Mr.S.Irfan Jaffer, Banjara HILLS,HYDE… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7005 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action to remove illegal construction and encroachment abutting to flat No.101 in the ground floor and bounded as North: open to sky, South: Staircases and lift, East: Open to sky and West: Flat No.102 in the apartment complex called Uma Park Side Apartment situated at 8-2468/1/2, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, made by the 3^rd respondent.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into Registered Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney vide Document No.4034 of 2004 with the 4^th respondent; dispute arose between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and an Arbitration application was filed before this Court to appoint three member Arbitrators for the settlement of the disputes; settlement was entered between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and the same was filed before the Arbitrators; the Arbitrators passed an award on the said settlement agreement dated 9.2.2011 and thereafter the 4^th respondent made construction and handed over the possession of the share fallen to the petitioner, and the 4^th respondent has sold his share to the third parties; third parties, who purchased the share fallen to the 4^th respondent, formed an association by name “Uma Park Side Apartment Flat Owners Welfare Association” i.e. 5^th respondent; the 3^rd respondent is one of the recently purchased owner of the flat No.101 which was sold by the 4^th respondent; the 3^rd respondent has encroached the common area towards North and

¶6

¶7

East side of flat No.101 and constructed a permanent structure by raising a temporary room with asbestos sheets and grills in spite of objection from the petitioner; as per the 3^rd respondent sale deed and the plan annexed thereto, he is the owner of flat No.101 in the ground floor to an extent of 2227 sq.feet.; the 3^rd respondent in collusion with the 4^th respondent and 5^th respondent encroached the common area towards North and East side of his flat No.101 and constructed a wall which is contrary to the settlement entered by the 4^th respondent and the petitioner.

¶8

The allegation against the 3^rd respondent is that he encroached the common area towards north and east side of his flat No.101 and constructed a wall which is contrary to his entitlement as per the sale deed and as per the settlement entered by the 4^th respondent and the petitioner and as disputed questions of law were involved, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies which are available to him, under law.

¶9

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶11

Date: 13/12/2018 lkv

¶12

Mr.S.Irfan Jaffer, Banjara HILLS,HYDERABAD-500034 v. Chief Commissioner, G.H.M.C., and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.Irfan Jaffer, Banjara HILLS,HYDERABAD-500034 v. Chief Commissioner, G.H.M.C., and 4 Others

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

Pailla Gopal Reddy Vs The Commissioner

M/s Sidduleswara Furniture Industries, Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

Juvvaji Indira Vara Krupakara Rao Vs The District Collector

S.Veerappa Naidu Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Vasamalla Ravi Babu, Karimnagar Dist and 10 Others Vs Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, Adilabad Dist

Subash Chandrabose Nagar Welfare and Development Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation