Dismissed

P. Linga Das, v. D. Prabhakar and 6 Ors.

Telangana HC22 Apr 2022WA/227/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of Writ Appeals Nos. 227 and 258 of 2009 as infructuous. The court held that occupancy certificates had already been issued in the underlying matters related to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rendering the appeals academic.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals disposed of as infructuous. Misc. applications closed. No order as to costs.

P. Linga Das, Vs D. Prabhakar and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL Nos.227 and 258 of 2009

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 227 OF 2009

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^{preferred against the order} dated 31-10-2008 inW.P.No.11998of 2008onthefileof^{the High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Linga Das, S/o. late P. Laxmaiah,^{(died) per} LRs

¶10

P. lvlailhusudan, S/o. late P. Lingadas, Aged about 31^{years, Occ: Business,} 3. Smt. N. Aruna @ Shailaja, W/o Sri N. Ramesh Kumar,^{Aged about 40 years,}

¶11

Occ: Housewife

¶12

1. Smt A. Anitha @ Bhagyavathi, W/o Sri A.Srinivas, Aged about 37^years, Occ: Housewife

¶13

(All are R/o.H.No.12-11-1711119 & 9A, Flat No.301, ltrlanasa Residency, Uppar Basthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.)

¶14

(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased appellant as^per Court Order, dated 27.10.2009 in W.A.tr/.P.No.2615 of 2009.) ...Appellants

¶15

AND

¶16

'1 . D. Prabhakar, S/o. D. Raghunanda, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.H.No.1 1-2-515l1, Uppara Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

¶17

1. Smt.lV.Aruna, D/o.Sri D.Raghunanda, aged about 54^years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1 1 -2-47 2l I lB, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

¶18

Smt.A.Latha, D/o.Sri D.Raghunanda, aged about 39^years, Occ: Housewife, F/o.18-5-439, Mekala Banda Laldanvaja, Hyderabad.

¶19

D.Raghunanda, S/o.lateD.Venkataswamy, aged about 78^years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No. 1 1-2-515l1 , Uppara Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

¶20

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶21

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶22

The Commissioner & Special Officer (Town Planning Section, H.O) The Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶23

The Assistant City Planner, Circle No.1B, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad.

¶24

"'Respondents/Respondents

¶25

counser for the AppeIants: sRI. C. RAGHU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI N. VIJAY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY,

¶28

SC FOR GHMC

¶29

il2il

¶30

WRIT APPEAL NO: 258 OF 2009

¶31

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the^{Letters Patent preferred against the} Orders dt. 31.10.2008^{in W.P.No.1241 of 2008, on the file of the High Court.}

¶32

Between:

¶33

1 P. Linga Das, S/o. late P. Laxmaiah,^{(died) per LRs} 2 P. Madhusudan, S/o. late P.^{Lingadas, Agedabout 31 years,Occ: Business,} 3 Smt. N. Aruna @ Shaila.la,^{W/o Sri N. Ramesh Kumar, Aged about 40 years,} Occ: Housewife

¶34

4 Smt A. Anitha @ Bhagyavathi,^{W/oSri A.Srinivas, Aged about 37 years, Occ:} Housewife

¶35

(All are Rl/o.H.No.12-11-1711119 & 9A, Flat^No.30'1 ,^{[,4anasaResidency'Uppar} Basthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.)

¶36

(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased appellant as^per briurt oroer. daled 27.1d.2009^{in w.A.M.P. No.2614 of 2009.} )

¶37

...Appellants

¶38

AND

¶39

'1 . Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶40

D.Prabhakar @ Prabhakar Rao,^{S/o.D.Raghunanda, aged about 50 years,} Occ: Business, Rl/o.H.No.^{1 1 -2-51511 I A, Uppar Basthi, Namalagundu'} Secunderabad.

¶41

Smt. D. Krishnaveni @ Kistamma,^{W/o.Sri D.Raghunanda, agedabout 72} years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.t 1-2-515111A, Uppar Basthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

¶42

... Res^{pondents/Responde} nts

¶43

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. C. RAGHU

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PASHAM^{KRISHNAREDDY,} SC FOR GHMC

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI^{N. VIJAY}

¶46

The Court delivered the following: COMMON^JUDGMENT

¶47

¶48

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JU^{STICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS^{TICEABHINANDKUMARSIIAVILI}

¶50

WRIT APPEAL NOs.227 arrd 258^{of 2OO9}

¶51

coMMON JUDGMENT: (Per tbLe Hon'bLe th,e Chief Justice Satish^{Chandra Sharma)}

¶52

Learned counsel for the^{respondentshas filed a}

¶53

Memo stating that the Occupancy^{Certificatehas already} been issued in the matters^{renderingthe writ appeals as} infructuous.

¶54

The writ appeals are accordingly^{disposedof as} infructuous.

¶55

The miscellaneous applications^{pending, if any, shall}

¶56

stand closed. There shall^{be no order as tq c-osts.}

¶57

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶58

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

i 3. '1 . One CC to Sri il; One d6 CC i;5;iN^{to Sri Pashi} C Y'r?* Raqhu' ftfl;ffi:'Rl35rYtt'o*^{Advocate-[QPlC]} GHruc ropucl 4. Two CD^Copies 5. Two^CDCopies CHR PS 4",-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210412022

COMMON JUDGMENT

1t\ eST
<(
(:
i 12 JUL ?022 .\o
t
cEsPA'r

¶65

W.A.Nos.227 and 258 of 2009

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

Uc---<br>5

P. Linga Das, v. D. Prabhakar and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Linga Das, v. D. Prabhakar and 6 Ors.

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

Chinya Keloth, Nizamabad Dist Vs the Govt. of a.P., Hyd and Another

M/s. Haricons Engineers and Contractors Vs Sri. Gurijala Sudhakar Reddy

D.M., Tsrtc Vs Gollamandala Subba Raju and Ano.

N.Mohan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Rapolu Bhaskar Netha Vs The State of Telangana

Anthony Marshall Vs The Honble Institution of Lokayuktha for the State of Telangana and 12 Others