Disposed

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai v. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

Telangana HC11 Apr 2022WP/12150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against GHMC officers for not stopping unauthorized building construction by unofficial respondents, alleging violation of GHMC rules and fundamental rights. Petitioner claimed property danger. Respondents issued notice, awaited explanation. High Court disposed of petition ordering appropriate action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation within four weeks from receipt of order copy.

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai Vs The Principal Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12150 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai, Wo. Late Pandurangam,^{Age.80 years,} Rqp^{bV her son} Y.P Dilip Kumar, S/o. Late Pandu Rangam ,^{R/o.H.No.6-6-41212,New Bhoiguda,} Secundrabad

¶8

...PETraoNER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration,^{For the State of Telangana,} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad^fv'lunicipal Corporation,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Zonal Commissioner, Secundrabad^Zone ,^{GHMC, Secundrabad.}

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle 30, Secundrabad^Zone ,^GHMC, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

Asst. City Planner, Circle 30, GHMC,^{Begumpet,Hyderabad.}

¶15

Deputy City Planner, Circle 30, Secundrabad^{Zone, GHMC, Begumpet,} Secundrabad

¶16

Smt. Sarang Preethi, Wo.Sarang Babu^{Rao, Age. 35 years, Occ. Home} maker,

¶17

Sarang Babu Rao, S/o- Not known, Age.^{37 years, Occ.private service,7 and} 8 Respondents are Ri./o .H.No.5-1-534, Hill Street,^{Ranigunj, Secundrabad,} Telangana.

¶18

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ , Order or Direction , more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{Respondents 2 to 6 in not stopping} the unauthorized building Construction^{work of the Unofficial Respondents 7 and} 8 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of^{GHMCbuilding PermissionRules and} against the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to} direct the Respondents to stop the unauthorized^{building Construction work of the} Unofficial Respondents 7 and^8.

¶22

¶23

lA NO: 2 t)F 2022

¶24

Pelition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased direct} the Registry to receive the^photos( 2 ) of unauthorized construction of^{the 7 and} Respondr:nts as additional documents and^{put up in the main writ petitionfor} consideration of this Honble Court.

¶25

Counsel l'or the Petitioner: SRl. UMA DEVI^NAMA Counsel l'or the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶26

Counsel lor the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: SRl. CHATLA MADHU,^{SC FOR} MUNICIPALITIES

¶27

Counsel lor the Respondent Nos.7 & 8:----

¶28

The Courl made the following: ORDER.

¶29

¶30

-_-__------

¶31

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.1215O of 2022

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 6 for not stopping the unauthorized building construction work oi the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8 as illegal, arbitrar5r arld violation of GHMC building permission rules.

¶35

Ms. Uma Devi Narna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the construction work carried out by respondent Nos.7 and 8 without ensuring any protection, the compound wall of the property of petitioner was dismaltled and if the respondents proceed with construction work, the house property of the petitioner may collapse in near future. He submits that the respondent authorities are not taking any action in spite of the representations made by the petitioner.

¶36

Mr. Chatla Madhu, Iearned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 frled counter stating that immediately after receiving the complaint, they have inspected the site and found columns are raised for gror.rnd floor by deviating from the sanctioned plan and immediately a notice dated 28.O3.2022 wn-der

I {

W.P.No.12150 of 2022

Section 452(ll and a6 1(l) of the GHMC Act, 1955was issued t() the unofficial rcspondents directed them to submit e:<planation for constructing building in deviation to the sanctioned plan. He submits that so far they have not received explanation frorn the respondents and once they receive the explanation, they will pass appropriate orders on tlre representation oI the pel itioner.

¶41

Recording the above subrnissions of learned Standing Counsel, as the representations of the petitioner is pending with the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of d:.recting the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the r€rpresentations of ttre petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any

¶43

shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/-T.KRISHNA^KUM DEPUTY REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION O ICER

Th() Principal^{Secretary Municipal Administration,For the State of Telangana'} Se,:retariat Buildings,^HYderabad'

¶50

Th(-. CommissioneiGreater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation'Hyderabad'} i. The^{zonal Commissioner,SeiundrabadZone, GHMC' Secundrabad'} +. ff,-^{O"puty Commissioner, Circle 30, Secundrabad Zone} '^GHMC' BegumPet,^HYderabad.

¶51

¶52

5 Asst. City Planner,^{Circle 30, GHtl4C,Begumpet'Hyderabad'}

¶53

6 Oeputy City Planner,^{Circle 30' Secundrabad Zone, GHITIC'Begumpet'}

¶54

Secundrabad

¶55

7 One CC to SRl.^{UIMADEVI NAIVA, Advocate[OPUC]} One CC to SRl.^{CHATLA lrlADHU,SC forGHII'4CIOPUC]}

¶56

BI TwoCCstoGPFORIiICPLADN/NURBANDEVELOPMENT,HighCouTtfoT the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶57

Two CD CoPies

¶58

1 1. One Spare^CoPY

PB^)"-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATEID: 1110412022

ORDER

WP.No.12150 of 2022

1 HE SiA /c
(
t
-\ ):
0 3 sEP 2022
'J,t !,)
t)t's i,^,i ct1 (rI)

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE^WP

¶69

WITHIOUT COSTS

¶70

N\Dt-----
4\qv

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai v. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai v. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 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

Maria Xavier Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Zaheda Begum Vs The Principle Secretary and 4 others

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mohammed Abdul Razzak Vs State of Telangana