Disposed

Md. Maslhuddin v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Telangana HC4 Dec 2020WP/21628/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition complaining of inaction by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board in sanctioning construction plans for two residents. The Court directed the Board to complete an enquiry after issuing notices within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board to complete an enquiry after issuing notices to petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 within four weeks.

Md. Maslhuddin Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board — Telangana HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21628 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Md. Maslhuddin, S/o lvl.Noonruddin, Aged 77 years. Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 2-64111910, NTR Nagar, Gopanpally, Serilingampally, R.R. District.

¶9

Syed Rizwan, S/o. Syed Karimulla, Aged about 32^years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Plot NO.44, Srinivas Lake View Colony, Bachpally, R.R. District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,

¶13

Smt. G.Kalpana, W/o Sri G.Rathnakar, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o FIat No. 105, Sri Sita Rama Residency, West Marredpally, Secunderabad

¶14

G.Ratnnakair, S/o Sri G.tr/allesham, Aged about 49^years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 105, Sri Sita Rama Residency, West Marrcdpally, Secunderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petltion under Article 226 of lhe Constrtution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of l\rlandamus declaring the deliberate inaction oldie 1st respondent in sanctioning the plan for permission to erection of Building issued by the 1st respondent vide File No.418/293 daled0111012020 in Plot No.3 admeasuring 300 sq. yds., in Sy No.^'1 57/4 situated at Wahab Nagar, Chinna Thokatta Village. Secunderabad which is exclusively belongs to the^petitioners without considering the representations of the petitioners and stop the carrying of the constructions the respondent nos 2 and 3 by demolishing the rooms in the subject^property by the 1st respondent is arbitrary. illegal. discriminatory. contrary to legislative expectations and in violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Articles 14. 19 and 21 as also of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd and the 3rd respondent not to raise any further structures in Plot No.3 admeasuring 300 sq.^yds., in Sy.No. 157/4 situated at Wahab Nagar, Chinna Thokatta Village, Secunderabad exclusively belongs to the^{petitioners pending} disposal of the main writ^petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.R KOTESWERA RAO

¶21

SR. SC FOR CANTONMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI P. RAD-HIEVE REDDY

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 21628 of 2020

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Sri Radhieve Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submits that essentially, the dispute being with respect to the property and as the petitioners have raised objections with respect to construction permission granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no objection for enquiry to be conducted by respondent No 1

¶28

Sri K.R.Koteshwara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Secunderabad Cantonment Board, submits that on account of the change of Administrative Officers, the complaint of the petitioners was not acted upon, however, now, the Board has taken note of the objections of the petitioners and after enquiry, necessary orders would be passed

¶29

Havrng regard to the prayer in the writ petition, which essentially, complains the inaction on the part of respondent No 1, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry after issuance of notice to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶30

Though learned counsel for the petitioners seeks, pending enquiry, sfalus guo orders be granted, this Court is not inclined to grant such orders for the simple reason that as long as the sanction granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is intact, and the same

¶31

is not being set aside in the appropriate proceedings, no orders of such nature can be granted

¶32

lt4iscellaneous petitions, if any, pendrng in this writ petition

¶33

shall stand disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Chief Executrve Officer,Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, 2. One CC to Sri V. V. Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P.Radhieve Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K.R. Koteswera Rao, SR SC for Cantonment Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies SM

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED:0411212020

¶41

1 H E s 14
(
oo 14 DEC2m
c
t *
c
P/.,j c

ORDER

WP.No.21628 of 2020

DISPOSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

A
t-/
1)

Md. Maslhuddin v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Maslhuddin v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

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

M/s Gvnr Krishna Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Ranga Rao Setti Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Errabelli Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

J Ramakrishna Vs Union of India and 2 others

Polavarapu Damodar Vs Union of India

Sundilla Venkati Vs The State of Telangana and 12 Others