Allowed

S.Dharam Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2019WP/7131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a letter from Telangana Heritage Department requiring petitioner to obtain GHMC confirmation. Court held that the Heritage Committee constituted under Act No. 22 of 2017 is the competent authority to consider the application and set aside the letter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter set aside. Respondent No. 2 directed to place petitioner's application before the Committee within six weeks.

S.Dharam Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 7131 of 2019

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the letter, 01.10.2018, addressed by the officials of the Telangana Heritage Department requiring him to obtain confirmation from the GHMC for considering the application for building permission.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is respondent No.2 who has to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for granting building permission by the GHMC and it is only the GHMC empowered to grant construction permission.

¶5

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit asserting that Act No.22 of 2017 came to be enacted as Telangana Heritage (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Maintenance) Act, 2017 and in terms of Section 9 thereof, the Greater Hyderabad Heritage and Precincts Committee is required to be constituted for the GHMC/HMDA area and the said Committee consists of 10 Members drawn from different departments and entrusted with specific functions in terms of Section 9(2). It is further asserted that such Committee has already been constituted on 28.03.2019 and discharging its functions, as such, it would take some time to consider the applications pending before the authority and that the Committee would consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶6

¶7

In view of the above, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside as the same does not relate to the functions which are required to be discharged by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the facts of the present case, as there being no dispute that the Committee has to consider the application of the petitioner for making construction in the land in question, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that the application of the petitioner be placed before the Committee for passing necessary orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶9

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

_________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Dt:10.04.2019
kdl

S.Dharam Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dharam Singh 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

Mir Hasan Ali Vs State of Telangana

Ganapuram Uma, Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs Mitu Parakh, Vs The State of Telangana

G.Deepak Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gopagalla Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Sri TagasirapuVenkata Siva Naidu Vs Union of India