N. Narahari, Hyd Vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd and 3 Ot

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1912 OF 2013

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt 18.O1.2012 passed in WP.No.2153B of 2010 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

J.Narahari, S/o. Sri.J.Anjaiah, aged 50 years, Occ:Business, Rl/o. H.No.3-6-369/5, St.No.2, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 29.

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3. Smt.Vidya Parop Kari, W/o. Sri.Vijay B.Parop Kari, aged about^yrs, Occ :Housewife, Fi/o.H.No.2-1-195118, Sree Prabha Siri Sampada Apt. Flat No.412, 4'n Floor, Near Vegetable Market Road, Shanker lvutt, Nallakunta, Hyderabad -4..

¶15

M.Rama Mohan, S/o. Note known, aged 45 years, Occ: Builder, Fl/o.Flat No.C1 , Sri.Mani Sai Paradise, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Standing Counsel for GHMC(Not Appeared) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI.R.NARASIMHA REDDY^(Not Appeared) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI.K.GOVERDHAN REDDY^(Not Appeared) The Court made the following Judgment :^-

¶20

('

¶21

THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{UJJAL ,]I::TIYAN} AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE C,V.BHA{;KAR [U}DI)Y

¶23

WRIT APPEAL No. 1912 of 20 lii

¶24

JUDGMENI I Pet the tlon bte the Chief^tusnce Ul]at tshuya^)

¶25

HearrI Mr" N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the responCents.

¶26

This vrit petition is directed against th: order dated 18.O1.2O1i passed by the learned Single Ju,l5le clisposing of W.P.No.1 1538 of 2010 filed by the appellarrt as the writ petitioner.

¶27

The related writ petition was filed by :he appellant assailing t re action of respondents No. I anr.1 2 in not preventing respondents No.3 and 4 lrom nrir king illegal constructio r contrary to the sanctionecl plan 111 H.No.3-er-3r r9 iAl23, Street No. 1, Himal.at.h Nagar, Hyderabad. Appellant further sought for a ctirection to ifl respondent ; No.1 and 2 to prevent responde rt. No.3 from making fur ther ccnstruction^{and also to d:I:rolish that}

\

t'

l

portion which was found to be constructed against the sanctioned p1an.

¶32

Learned Single Judge by the order dated 78.01.2012 held as follows:

¶33

"17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the instant case, there is an order passed by the Civil Court restraining the Municipal Corporation not to interfere with the structures of the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third ald fourth respondents would submit that they have made constructions as per the sanctioned plan by the Municipal Corporation, though initially they constructed G + 2 but later on G + 3 floors. But, as no counter affidavit is filed by the.respondents nor argument is placed before this court, this Court is not inclined to go into the allegations more particularly as the subject matter of the writ petition is pending in the civil court. Under these circumstances, giving liberty to the parties to move the court below for expeditious disposal."

¶34

/

¶35

Thus, learned Single Judge held that there was ar order of the civil Court restraining Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) from interfering with the r ( structures of respondent No.3. Therefore, learned Single

¶36

Judge dec ined to entertain the aliegations^{rlade by the} appellant.

¶37

On arpeal, the following order canre to lrr:^passed on 26.t2.20ri.

¶38

/

¶39

"After hearing the^{learnedcounsel for'.ltJle} partie: and after going through the sLatemcnts and averm,:nts in the pleadings and the fact recordr:rl by the Iearne,l Single Judge, we direct the Comrnis;x--ner of Cireate: Hyderabad Municipal Corporation hrmself to look i rto the complaint made by the appe lant(writ petitior rer) alleging illegal construction and alrro the applicr tion made by the owner for regulariz;rtion of lhe constrl rctron a.lready been made under the prolisions of Sectior 455-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpor rtion Act, 1955 (for short the Actl. Both these tl.rings ;hould be considered and decided simultrur,:ously in accc rdance with law. Obviously, the Comn.issioner will de< ide personally u,hile taking note o[ the provisions of Secti cn 455-A of the Act. lf the conditions mr:ntioned in Sect on 455-A of t1.e Act are fulfilled, obvio rsly, he has to rass appropriate order. If the conditions aje not fulfrlled obviously no regularization can be mad,-' i''rrd in the evt nt, regulation is not made, then imm,:di:Lte orders vould be passed, if necessary, for demolit:on of the bui ding and demolition orders will be carliei out wittrin i fortnight from the date of taking such de(:ision. Till a lecision is taken by the Greater Hvrlerabad Municip a1 Corporation, there shall not be arty t^-atrsft.r, alienatir'n, encumbrance or parting with the possession

¶40

.1

¶41

of the building in question. Status-quo as on today shall be maintained. The Commissioner shall depute appropriate watch and ward ofhcials to see that this order of the Court is carried out in all levels. If it is not carried out, then it will be open for the Corporation olficials to take this to the notice of the police officia.ls and the offrcer in-charge shall render a-ll possible assistance and police help."

¶42

7 . Thus, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to look into the grievance of the appellant regarding illegal construction by respondents No.3 and 4 and thereafter to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Slalus quo 'dras directed to be maintained till such time a decision was taken by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

¶43

B. At this distart point oi time, we are ol the view that no useful purpose rn ould be served by taking a vlew contrary to what was taken by the co-ordinate Bench on \ 26.12.2013.

¶44

5

¶45

I

¶46

9 Accor Cingly, we dispose^{of the writ appealin termsof} the order d lted 26.12.2O13.

¶47

Misce llaneous applications^{pending. fany, shall}

¶48

stand close d. However,^{there shall be no order ils 1-o costs'}

¶49

S;D/.T.SRIN AS tli: PU'ry REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

I

]:iECTION OFFICER

To

1 The Principal iecretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. Muni,; pal hdministration, Secretariat Br ilding, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .) The Commiss oner, Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corpc ratior, Hyderabad.

¶55

3 Two CCs to G P FOR MUNCIPAL ADTVN AND URBAN t)E.V, lligh Court for the State of Tulangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

4 One CC to SF LN.ASHOK KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to DF .Y.PADMAVATHI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SF I.R.NARASItt/HA REDDY, Advocate [OPLI(: ]

¶58

6

¶59

7 One CC to SF I.K.GOVERDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPLI(]l

B Two CD Copit s

o One spare co1 ry

S A.

SW N=--

HIGH COURI'

DATED:27101t12022

JUDGMENT

i '.\E l;la I€
z
'(
/)
( [ 1 tiB ?$8

WA.No.1912 of 2013

DISPOSING CF THE W.A

WITHOUT CI)STS.

G(io
c
t'l\ *

N. Narahari, Hyd v. Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Narahari, Hyd v. Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd and 3 Ot

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

Bhadradi Vocational Jr. College, Khammam Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Higher Education and 3 Ors.

Mr. Kotapati Ravi, And 3 Others Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Initiating Officer, And 2 Others

Risely Feeds Private Limited Vs The Adjudicating Authority

Greater Hyd. Mun. Corp., Vs Asian Paints Ltd.

M/s Vibri Media Private Limited and another Vs Union of India and another

Hbl Power Systems Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and 2 others