Allowed

Tenneti Venkata Satya Prasad, v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2019WP/6061/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the building authority to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permission and pass appropriate orders, noting that an adjacent plot in the same survey was granted permission without requiring a No Objection Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Tenneti Venkata Satya Prasad, Vs The State Of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6061 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner challenges the Shortfall Notice dated 19.10.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent refusing to grant Building Permission to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 5^th respondent for processing his application for Building Permission in Plot No.101 situated in Survey No.66/2, Raidurg Nawkhalsa village, Serilingampally mandal.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that his request for building permission has been rejected by the respondents through the impugned shortfall notice though in Plot No.107, which is adjacent to the petitioner’s plot in the same layout in Survey No.66/2, Raidurg Nawkhalsa Village, Serilingampally mandal, permission was granted on 17.05.2018 without insisting for NOC from the 5^th respondent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that in similar circumstances, the respondent authorities have granted permission; and that in a large number of cases, this Court had directed the authorities to reconsider the applications and pass appropriate orders and therefore similar direction may be given in this writ petition.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that, in similar circumstances, this Court had directed the authorities to reconsider the applications of the petitioners.

¶8

wp_6061_2019 CKR, J

¶9

¶10

Having regard to the respective submissions, more particularly the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have granted permission in the case of Plot No.107 falling under the same survey number without insisting for NOC from the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________________
JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
02 nd April, 2019
KSM

¶14

wp_6061_2019 CKR, J

¶15

¶16

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶17

WRI T PETI TI ON No.6061 of 2019
02 nd April, 2019

¶18

KSM

Tenneti Venkata Satya Prasad, v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenneti Venkata Satya Prasad, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vs Dr D Suvarna

Dasyam Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Gautam Girdhari Gianchandani Vs The State of Telangana

K.Madhavachari Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Muppidi Vidyadhari Vs The State of Telangana

V.Prabhakar Rao Vs State of Telangana