In quashing its own earlier interim order regarding layout release, the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal where the appellant sought relief that was covered by the common judgment in a dismissed appeal batch.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32es ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1625 OF 2013
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 29.06.2010 in WP No. 3994 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
M/s. Sunrise Homes Limited,, Regd. Office at Flat No. 204/4, Sanatana Eternal,3B-108, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Ch. Suresh Kumar.
...APPELLANT
AND
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WAMP. NO: 330 1 0F 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleasedto direct the respondent No.1 to release the finallayout building permissionand releasethe mortgage the constructed areaby continue the lnterim order dated26.02.2OO8 in wPMPNo.5214/2008 inwPNo.3994/2008, pendingdisposalof the above writ appeal Counsel for the Appellant:SRI G. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY(NOT PRESENT)
Counsel forRespondent No. 1: SRI M DHANANJAY REDDY (SC FOR HUDA)
Counsel forRespondent No' 2 & 3 : GP FOR REVENUE
The Court madethe following;JUDGMENT
lXE.Hr: I@JJ A!.EIIUY{N
AND ICE A KAITRIDD\I W.A.No. 1 25 of 2073
DGMEN'I (1't tbe Hzn'bh /h/ Lhi4 Junre t ilial tsluytr)
None appears for the appellant on call though Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, leamed Govemment Pleader lbr Revenue is present for respondents No.2 and 3.
)
It is submitced by the leamed coursel for the petitioners and admined to bythe learned counsel for the respondents that tlre subject matter of this batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the common judgment rendered by this Coun in !f.P. No. 26688 of 2007 and batch, dated 28.04.2010, which was disposed of holding as under:
"(a) It shall be competent for the Urtan Development Authorities, or the local Authorities, as the case may be, to .insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts; and
(b) the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted."
In the circumstances, following the above judgment and for the reasons mentioned therein, these writ petitions are also disposed of by and in terms of the directions as extracted above. There shall ' be no orderas to costs.
l
Th,:re shall be interim direction to the respondent No.1 to release the final layout, without iruisting on "No Ob.iection Crnificate" from the authorities under the provisions of tlre Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (C-onversion for N>n-Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006. It is. hower,er, made clear that the appellant-petitioner shall comply with all other legal requirements l'or' the release of the final layout. The appellantpetitiorler shall also file an affidavit before the: respordent No.1 that in the event of its not succeeding in the present writ appeal, it wrll discharge its liability under the provisions of the Act.
Obligation of filing affidavit cast upon the appellant-petitioner shall be obepd and affidavit, if not filed, shall be filed within two weeks in ternx of the interim direction.
7 At this stage, we have been informed that against the
common judgment and order dated 28.04.2010 passed in \fl.P.No.26688 of 2A07 and batch, a batch of writ appeals being
.l
V.ANo.ZQ2 of 2O1O and batch were filed, which uere dismissed
on 28.08.2015.
8 In view of the above, rhis writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE COPY/I v - SECTI6N OFFICER
To,
1 One CC to Sri G Kalyan Chakravarthy Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] J Two CCs to GP For Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4.t One CC to Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy MBC bs
?
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0810912022
1ri g. s TA l-E:
( <br>J
1 g IEC ?C22
a'',,
ORDER
WA.No.1625 of 2013
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS
COQ."1
2j>
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
not statedReferred¶30
W.P. No. 26688 of 2007
not statedReferred¶40
V.A. No. 202 of 2010
M/s. Sunrise Homes Limited
The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
UJJAL BHUYAN
C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
