Rajendran Chingaravelu, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Ghmc)

Telangana HC18 Apr 2019WP/7816/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a building permit issued by GHMC for construction on land the petitioner claimed was gifted for a park. The court, finding no objection from respondents' counsel, disposed of the petition by directing authorities to notify the petitioner and consider their representation before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and issue notice to concerned parties before any action is proposed in the subject matter.

Rajendran Chingaravelu, Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.7816 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition, challenge is to the Building Permit Order dated 11.03.2019 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4 thereby permitting construction activity in the land admeasuring 898.34 square meters in Survey No.4 of Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of Villa No.6 in Lalitha Bloomfield, a Gated Community situated in Survey No.4 of Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 3^rd respondent, at the time of approval of layout, had gifted the subject land in favour of the 1^st respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) through a Gift Settlement Deed dated 05.07.2006 for the purpose of establishing a park. However, the 3^rd respondent, in connivance with respondents 1 and 2, clandestinely sold away the subject land in favour of the 4^th respondent by way of a registered sale deed, and the 2^nd respondent has issued the impugned Building Permit in favour of the 4^th respondent basing on which he is proceeding with the construction activity in the subject land. Pointing out that granting of such permission is impermissible, the petitioner submitted objections on 29.11.2016 and also on 28.02.2019. However, the respondents have not considered his objections.

¶6

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if his objections are considered by respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

wp_7816_2019 CKR, J

¶8

¶9

Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and there being no objection on the part of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, without expressing any opinion with respect to the allegation of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner, by following due process. Before any action is proposed in the subject matter, the respondent authorities are bound to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 and call for explanation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if

¶10

any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________________
JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
18 th April, 2019
KSM

¶12

wp_7816_2019 CKR, J

¶13

¶14

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTI CE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶15

WRI T PETI TI ON No.7816 of 2019

¶16

18^th March, 2019

¶17

KSM

Rajendran Chingaravelu, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Ghmc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran Chingaravelu, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Ghmc)

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

3i Infraprojects (Mauritius) Limited, Vs Navayuga Engineering Company Limited

M.Jeshwanth Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rangu Subash Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Blue Wave It Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Nunugonda Santosh Vs The State of Telangana

Chepuri Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana