Disposed

M/s Marpu Builders Private Limited., v. Sneha Arcade Flat Owners Welfare Association

Telangana HC11 Mar 2022WA/43/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court wrote appeal by a builder confined its inclusion of a representation for conversion of its alleged construction into residential area by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation sending a stay on further proceedings and directed the corporation to hear all parties including the appellant and decide within sixty days.

What did the court decide?

Rewriting Appellers appeal against order directing GHMC to decide representation; directed GHMC to hear all parties and pass orders within sixty days.

M/s Marpu Builders Private Limited., Vs Sneha Arcade… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF N/ARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 43 OF 2019

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order dated 12-12-2018 Passed in W.P.No. 4497012018. on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Marpu Builders Private Limited.,, Having its Office at 91, D.V.Deluxe Ground Floor, Vishnupuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad, Rep by its Managing^Dtrector D.Nutan Kranthi, S/o Late Sri D.Vittal, aged about 33^years, Occ. Business,^R/o lt4ahend ra Hills, Flyderabad.

¶11

..-PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Sneha Arcade Flat Owners Welfare Association., Bearing^{Regn No 0778106.} having its Office at H.No 22-2713, 1st Floor, Sneha Arcade. R^{K Nagar.} tt4alkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500 047, Rep by its Secretary^lt4r. B.Satya rSaiRam. S/o B.Sitaramayya, aged aboul 42^years, Occ.^{Private Employee, R/o Flat No} 305, Sneha Arcade, R.K.Nagar, l,4alkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶14

RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, [t/unicipal^{Administration} and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶16

Greater Hyderabad tr4unicipal Corporation,, Rep by^{its Commissioner, Near} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^Circle- 1 6, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation,} Secunderabad.

¶19

6 D-Nikhil Kranthi, S/o Late D.Vittal, aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No 66, Kranthi Villa, Sanjeev Housing Coopeiative Society, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad.

¶20

(Respondent No.6 is not necessary party to the present Appeal)

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

l.A.No.4 OF 2019

¶23

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dt. 12-i2-2018 passed in W.P.No 4497012018, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.G.VENKAT REDDy

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR MUNICtpAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI.CHATLA MADHU, SC FOR GHMC

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : NONE APPEARED

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶32

WRIT APPEAL No.43 OF 2019

¶33

JUDGMENT, rPer the Han bte the cl,eI Jusrice SaishChrndrc Sharma)

¶34

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44970 of 2018.

¶35

The contention of the appellant is that it is a builder of a building in respect of which the lr,rit petition was filed by Sneha Arcade FIat Owners'Welfare Association / writ petitioner, u'ithout impleading the builder. It has becn stated that an orcier has been passed by the learncd Singie Judgc dirccting ihe^()rcatcr il),derabad Municipai Corporation (GHMC) Lo decidc the rcpresentation dated 04. 10.2018 in accordance rvith Ia\'.

¶36

This Court has carelully gone throLlgh the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same reveals that the issue involved in the writ petition was unauthorised construction made in the parking area. The flat owners did submit a representation dated 04.10.2018 to the GHMC, as the parking area was illegaiiy encroached and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has simply directed the Commissioner, GIIMC, to decide the representation dated 04.10.2018 and tcproceed ahead in accordance with law.

¶37

This Court,^{after careful considerationof the order passed} by' thc learncd^{Single Judge, is of the consideredopinionthat} thclactu,hell.reriheparkingareahasbeen..onvcrtedinto residentral^{area/ commcrcial area has to be lookcdinto bv the} GHMC and^{therefore, the GHMC shall be free topass} appropriate^{orders,in accorclancewith law' after hearingall thc} parties including^{the present appellantalso and totake} consequential^{action in the matter within sixtydaysfrom today'} The appellant^{as weil as the respondentNo' 1/writ petitioner} shal1 appear^{beforethe Commissioner, GHMC' on 2l 'O3 '2022 at} 10:30AMandtheCommissionershallbefreetoproceedahead in accordance^{with law.}

¶38

With the aforesaid,^{the u'rit appealstands disposedof'}

¶39

Pending^{miscellaneous applications' if any' sl-raii stand} closed.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶40

SD/.CH'VEN^KATESWARULU //rRUE coPY// DEPUTY^RE.GISTRAR

¶41

frfr{ SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To 1 Sri B.Sitaramayya,^{Secretary, SnehaArcade Flat Owners Welfare} Association,,^{Bearingn"gn''NiJoii8/oo'f''uingits officeat H No 22-2713' 1sl} trrnnr enpha Arcade. R^{(.N;;r;,'rr/arr<'aigiii, Hlderabad - 500 047 tt/r' R/o} .rHI'N"'!5i:S;h; n;;;o;; Hk Nagar,'tutatxajsiri, Hvderabad

¶43

2 The Principal^{Secretary,rt'r''i'iiiiliii nffiinistratiSnand urban Development} ffi^{; rtffi I'i's1".iuiuriiiB ;i; i"b;, state or relansa na' H vd era b ad'}

¶44

e"rrt)

¶45

The Commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad tr/unicipal Corporation, NearTank} Bund, Hyderabad.

¶46

- ir,e oeputv commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipalcorporation, circle-} 1 6, Malkajgiri, HYderabad.

¶47

s. The Zonai"Commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation'} Secunderabad.

¶48

o. onl Cc t" sRt.pnRse^{ANANTH NAGESWARRAo, AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶49

On" CC to SRI.G.VENKAT^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC] a One CC to SRI.CHATLA^{I\4ADHU, SC FOR GHMC(OPUq)} . . . ^

¶50

s.TwoCCstoGPFoRIMUNICIPALADMNANDURBANDEV'HighCourttor the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.[OUT]}

¶51

10.Two CD CoPies

¶52

1 1 . One spare copy

SA BS+

HIGH COURT

HC,J & AKS,J

DATED:1110312022

JUDGMENT

1 $E s;A Ie'
$'r
12 ,8.pF 2. 2
rl')
ah ,r1q:,-':')

WA.No.43 of 2019

DISPOSING OF THE W.A

WITHOUT COSTS.

2
4
1L
1 1r

M/s Marpu Builders Private Limited., v. Sneha Arcade Flat Owners Welfare Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Marpu Builders Private Limited., v. Sneha Arcade Flat Owners Welfare Association

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

Swatantra Rai Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Transport,and 5

K,Bhagavan Raju Vs the State of Telangana

M/s. Platina Properties and Projects Private Limited, Vs The Government of Telangana

Independent Schools Management Ass., Vs Special Chief Secy., School Education dept.

M/s Premier Ethanols Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited And Another

Hs Parents Vs Prl.Secy., School Education Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others