Dismissed

Prof Vinayak Reddy and another v. Smt Sireesha Bhupatiraju and 2 others

Telangana HC3 Dec 2021WA/805/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was filed challenging an order of the Single Judge directing the Municipality to account for explanations on alleged unauthorized construction/repairs. The Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the order of the Single Judge directing the municipality to pass a fresh order stands.

Prof Vinayak Reddy and another Vs Smt Sireesha… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF^DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2019

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^{Patent PreferredAgainst the Order Dated} 19-09-2019 in W.P.No 20319 of 2019^{on the file of the High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Prof Vinavak Reddv, S/o^{Late Sri A.Veera Reddy'Age 64 years,Occ. Retd.} Professor'RJo Villa No. 3. Micasa Sterling,^{Kompally, Medchal-MalkajgiriDist.}

¶10

2 Smt. Sudha Rani, Wio Y.Ravinder^{Redd-y, Age. 55 years,Occ. Housewife,Rl/o} Villa No. 2. Micasa Sterling,^{Kompally, Medchal-MalkaigiriDist.}

¶11

..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT^{NO.3AND 4 iN W.P}

¶12

AND

¶13

Smt Sireesha Bhupatiraju,^{W/o Mr Murali Kristna,Age.4Q ye-ars,Occ.House} Wife, R/o 1620, Fihh Avenue Apt.^{C2OKEMOS tUl 48864, USA,Being Rep. by} her GPA Holdei Mr K.V.S.S.Vari^{Prasada Varma, S/o Rama Krishna Raju. Occ.} Business, R/o Flat No.202,^{Jaya Darshini Enclave.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTA/VRIT PETITIONER

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Prl. Secretary,Govt..} .^Municipal Administration and Urb-an Development^{Dept., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad-} 500 022.

¶16

ihe Municipal Commissioner,^{Kompally Municipality' Kompally, tt/edchal-} Malkajgiri Dist'

¶17

...RES'.NDENT./RES'.NDENT'

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the order dated 19-09-2019^{in w.P.No.20319 of 2019, pending disposal of} the Main Writ Appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI^{T. NARENDER}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : SRISRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP^{FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI^{N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶24

S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA EIII|RIAA} AND I THI HON'^BLESRI JUSTI CE N.

¶27

WRIT^{APPEAL No'8O5of 2019}

¶28

i"r S/r'rr"rtrr JUDG^ME NT: tt',^{tr,.Hori't'1(} 'r't^L'lte-/ ''ristr(r'^{-slrr slr} 'lrrl'f

¶29

The^{pres ent n'rit appeal is arisingouLt of orderdated} 19,Og.2O1g^{pt ssed in W'P'No 20319 of 2019 by the learned} Single^Judge.

¶30

ThefactsofthecaserevealthatrespondentNo.lhas preferred^{a w it petitionbeforethis Court beingaggrieved by} theorderdattdll.og'2olgpassedbyrespondentNo.3inthe writ appeal^{1 nderSectio t228(l)of the Municipalities Act'} 1965.^{The c( ntention of the writ petitioner was that she was} carrylng out certain^{repairs inthe first floor and the} or der has^been passed treating^{the reParrsas} impugned The learned^{Single Judge has} Llnauthorizec^constructlon disposed^{of t 1e matter with a direction to the mttnicipalitl'-to} account^{the explanatlon} pass orders^{dul-v taking into} Against^{the aforesaidorder'} submitted^{b' the nrit petitioner'} the present^{' rrit aPPeal is filed'}

¶31

The le, irned^{Single Judge has directedthe mtrnicipality} to pass^{a i'esh order taking into account the explanation} submitted^{t y the writ petitioner'Therefore'this Court does} not find an'^{reason to interferewith the order passed by the} learned^Sin $e^{Judge' The municipality shall certainly pass}

¶32

an appropriate^{order by taking in to account the Telangana}

¶33

MuniciPalities^{Act, 196c'}

¶34

Accordingly,^{the writ appealis dismissed'}

¶35

Miscellaneous^{petitions' ifany' shalistand closed'}

¶36

There^{shali be no orderas to costs'}

¶37

s D^{/- c H} J/EEJiHF:H,I+HhH

¶38

¶39

,,TRUE^COPY" SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

¶41

H sh^c'u n:::r".

¶42

i ilrtEt,ilfjflIitu)lxf,fl$.&t9{IffidP:{*'fr

MP \ Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:03112121t21

JUDGMENT

WA.No.805 of 1019

1r.P* 51.t r,14-'
^o. -
,it/
[ fi ,!eN ?012

¶50

DISMISSING T HE WRIT^APPEAL WITHOUT GOIiTS

¶51

,.,v
b

Prof Vinayak Reddy and another v. Smt Sireesha Bhupatiraju and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof Vinayak Reddy and another v. Smt Sireesha Bhupatiraju and 2 others

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

M/s. Ananya Infra Projects Private Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Venkateswara Plot Owners Association Vs Sri Aziz Jeelani

Basuradi Anjaiah , China Anjaiah (died) Vs The State of Telangana

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Re.by its Chairman and M.D. Vs D.B. Papa Raju

Uppala Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Al-Hashmi Wakf Properties Protection Cell, Hyd Vs B. Janardhan Reddy, Hyd