Disposed

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Telangana HC15 Jun 2021WP/3491/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging illegal construction and non-consideration of representations. Instead of merit analysis, the Court directed the officers to expediently consider pending representations and provide a hearing before the unofficial respondents.

What did the court decide?

The official respondents are directed to consider the pending representations, serve notices to the petitioner and unofficial respondents for a hearing, and pass necessary orders within four weeks.

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3491 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammed Jahangir, S/o late M. Ali, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o H. No. 22-3-947133, Purani Haveli Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

Greater Hlderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No. 8, Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Chief Town Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Asst Town Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No. 8, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No, 8, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶16

T. Ganesh, S/o. Late Sri Manaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.^'106, Citadel Apartments, Vittalvadi, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

G. Ra.iender Singh, S/o. Late G. Heera Singh, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business.

¶18

Smt. Sashi Rekha, W/o. G. Rajender Singh, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Household.

¶19

G. Karan Singh, S/o. G. Rajender Singh, Aged about 39 years, Occ.Service.

¶20

1^'1 . G. Amarnath Singh, S/o. G. Rajender Singh, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Business.

¶21

All 8 to 11 resident of H. No. 6-3-457, Besides, NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in issuing permit Nos. 31C1411245812020 dated 1111212020 and permit No.3/C14l1231612020 dated08l1212020 in the name of Respondent No. 8 and 9 by not considering the petitioners representation dated 2411012014, 1811212014, 1810112021 and the latest requisition dated 3010112021 and not taking any action gainst the illegal construction being made by unofficial respondents No. 7 to 11 in H. No.4-8-68/A/18 (Old No.4-8-68/4/4) admeasuring 554 sq yards situated at Putli Bowli, Rang Mahal Road, Hyderabad as is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution, in violation of principles of natural

¶24

justice besides in violation of GHMC Act, Rules and Regulations, consequenfly direct the official respondents 1 to--6 to stop the illegal construction on petitioners pioperty being carried out by the unofficial respondents No. 7 to .1 1 attached to the peiitioner,s another property, in the interest of justice.

¶25

ANO: 1OF 2021

¶26

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 official respondents '1 to 6 to stop the illegil construction on the petitioner,s property being carrying out by the unofficial respondents No 7 to 11 attached to the petitioner's another property,.in H. No 4-g-68/4/18 (old No. 4-8-68lAl4) admeasuring 554 sq yards situated at^pufli Bowri, Rang Mahar Road, Hyderabao, peiroing oisposar of the writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. NASEEM ARA

¶28

lgynsel^{for the Respondent No. 1: Gp FoR MUNrcrpALADMrNrsrRATroN} & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6: SRl. N. ASHOK KUMAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 : SRI KOWTURU VtNAy KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE^{HON BLE SRI JUSTICE A'ABHISHEKREDDY} N No.^3491of 2021 WRIT^PETITIO

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Hea'rd^{the learnedcounselfor the petitioner' learnedGovernment} Pleader^{for MunicipalAdministrationaldUrbanDevelopmentfor} respondent^{No 1, and Sri N'Ashok Kumar'IearnedStanding Counsel for} GHMC,^{for respondent Nos'2 to 6' and Sri Kowhrru Vinay Kumar'learned} counsel^{for respondent Nos'7 to 11' With their consent' the WritPetition} is disposed^{of at the stage of admissionitself'}

¶35

Aggrieved^{by the actionof the of{icial respondents in issurng} permissions^{in favour of the unoffrcial respondents' withoutconsidering} the representations^{made by thepetitioner on 24'lO'2014't8'l2 2Ol4'} 18.01.2021and30.01,2021,thepresentwritpetitioniSrlled.

¶36

Having^{regardto the fact thatthe representations of the petitioner} are already^{pending before the authorides'without goingintothe merits} or demerits^{of the case' the Writ Petitionis disposed of directingthe} official^{respondent to considerthe representations made by the petitioner} on 18.01.2021^{and 30 012021 and pass necessatyorders thereon'} strictly^{in accordancewith law' duly putting the petitioner as well as} respondent^{Nos T to 11 on notice' caJling for their explanationand} alfording^{them an opportunity of hearing' as expeditiously as possible'} preferably,^{withina period of four weeksfromthe date of receipt of a} copy^{of this order' A copy of the order passedby the authorities shall be} communicated^{to the Parties'}

¶37

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending in this writ petition' if any' shall} stand^{closedThere shall be no order as to costs'}

¶38

o..,.ri,3{'X"#\t*til Li' /ITRUE^COPYI' SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

¶40

To,

¶41

ig-ffinr**m:ftr;;;*;:

¶42

¶43

The Chief^{Town Planner' Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation TankBund} E Road' The Asst Hyderabad^{Town Planner'G} ^reater Hyderabad Municipal corporation^{circle No 8'} Abids'Hyderabad' GreaterHyderabadMunicipalcorporation The Zonal^{Commissioner'}

¶44

6, The Zonal^{Commissioner'} b'ir"r"^{r.r". 8, Abids, *.r-9ltX?SoAorocate}

¶45

7 One CC^{to M/s Naseem.i}

¶46

[opUCl

¶47

7 8I .sffi 33iI:f^{l;n;l'",-*lxkffl :?:1!']!"'":!ii:',""L,",.ent,Hishcou.} 1 b ;;; ;6J^{t;GPfor Municipal Administration & urban} " r";ih; si;te orrelansana [ourl

¶48

11.Two^{CD CoPies'}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510612021

ORDER

WP.No.3491 of²⁰²¹

1 H e S 14 rc
o
CIJ
.1 7 Jrliu lczt
(-,
.L t/
%
'i)
_-_-

¶56

Disposing of the^WP Without costs. @ff*"

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State of Telangana and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State of Telangana and 10 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

KandukuruBhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Chandra Prakash and Another Vs the Dy. Collector and 7 Others

Chinturi Gopala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Aishwarya Infra Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Srinivas Sajjanapu Vs State of Telangana

Vakiti Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana