Dismissed

SVs Advaith Homes v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Oct 2022WP/801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review petition challenging an order dismissing a writ petition related to illegal construction. The Court held that the petitioner's grievances stemmed from subsequent actions, not errors in the impugned order, and the asserted incomplete demolition was not a ground for review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

SVs Advaith Homes Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY^{OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶6

EVIEW PETITION No.3 OF

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 801 OF 20

¶9

Between:

¶10

SV's Advaith Homes, H.No.12-7-13419, Anjaneya^{Nagar,Moosapet,} Hyderabad, Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary^{.S.Krishna Kumari,W/o} K. Viiayasaradhi, Age 43 Years, Occ Private Employee, Rlio. Flat No.401, SV's Advaith Homes

¶11

...PETrroNER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by^its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 23, Greater Hyd6rabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad

¶16

The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle No. 23, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶17

Edula Anjaneyulu Goud, S/o. Edula Mallaiah, Aged Major, Occ Business,^Fl/o. Plot.No.11, Opp. Union Bank of lndia, Anjaneya Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad' Telangana state'

¶18

...RES'.NDENT'

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that for the reasons statedⁱⁿ Memorandum of^grounds filed in Support thereof., the High Court^{may be} pleased to allow the review petition by reviewing the^judgement and order dated 1211012022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.^BO1 of^2O22.

¶20

This petition coming on for hearing, upon^peruslng the^petitionand Memorandum of^grounds filed in support thereof and^{upon reading the Order} dated 1211012O22 in W.P.No.8O1 ol 2022 and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri} Erigi Ganesh, Counsel for the Petitioner, GP for MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1, SRI PASHAM} KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR GHMC, Counsel^for the^{RespondentNos. 2lo 4 and} None Appeared for the Respondent No.5, the Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶21

I i

¶22

I I l I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

REVIEIII PETITION No.3 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.8O1 of 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The review petition is file<l seeking the following relief:

¶29

"... to allow the review petition by reviewing the^judgement and order dated 12.7O.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.8O1 of 2O22 and .....".

¶30

2 . Mr. Erigi Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court by order dated 12.1O.2022 has disposed of the writ petition i.e. W-P.No.8O1 of 2022 recording the submission of the learned standing counsel that the ofhcials of the respondent corporation have inspected the subject^property and found that the unofhcial respondent has obtained building permission from the corporation for construction of stilt + 3 upper floors, but, he is constructing in deviation to the sanction plan duly laying cellar floor slab, ground floor slab ald proceeding with second floor and they have initiated action by seizing the working tools and also removed centering work and they have also issued a show cause notice under Section a52(21 arrd final notice d:rted 02.17.2O21 under Section 636 of HMC At, 1955 and dernolished the illegal construction. He submits that it is also observed in the said orcler that arong with the counter affidavit, the respondent corporation has filed photographs

¶31

Review I.A.No.3 of2022ⁱⁿ wP.No.B0l of 2022

¶32

)

¶33

showing that they have already completed the demolition^activity by considering the representation of the^petitioner.

¶34

The petitioner has Iiled the present review petition stating that without demolishing the illegal structure, the respondents have come before the court and submitted that they have demolished, as such, he is seeking to review the order.

¶35

In the aflidavit hled in support of the review petition, it is stated that in a case initiated before the Human Rights Commission, the corporation has frled a report admitting that after demolition of the illegal construction by the respondent No.2, the respondent No. 5 has again reconstructed and made illegal constructions, as such, the order has to be reviewed.

¶36

Mr. M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the petitioner himself has stated that the unofficial respondent in the writ petition has reconstructed the building after its demolition. He submits that the petitioner could not make out any grounds for review of the order and the review petition has to be dismissed.

¶37

Review LA.No.3 of2022 in W.P.No.801of 2022

¶38

¶39

The grounds on which the petitioner is seeking to review of the order passed by this coLrrt are not the grounds on which a order can be reviewed. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the subsequent action, whereby, the unofficial respondent in the writ petition has made the constmction. If that is the case, he has to question the same. It is also alternatively submitted by the petitioner that the re spondents have not completely demolished the illegal construction and they have only punctured. That a-[so cannot be a ground for seeking review. Hence, this court finds no reasons to entertain this review petition. Further, if there is any calrse of action for the petitioner, he can pursue the same by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶40

Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed

¶42

sD/- MOHD.^SANAULLAHA ASSISTANT^RE R //TRUE COPY// SECTION O^FICER

¶43

To, 1. One CC to SRI ERIGI RAIVESH, Advocate [OPUC] 2 O;. CC tO SRI PASHAM KRISHNA^{REDDY, SC FOR GHMC} [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN .^{DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the Stateof Telangana.} [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies BN GJP

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED:01 10212023

¶46

..irA
r-.
19 l\tn ?[23 ]
_)
/

¶47

ORDER

¶48

REVIEW PETITION No.3 OF²⁰²² IN

WP.No.801 o12022

DISMISSING THE IA

(-)) @'q"'

$Nk

SVs Advaith Homes v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SVs Advaith Homes v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt. Sukhavasi Lalitha , Lalithamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

S. Shiva Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Ravu Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

V.G.Gyaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Pannala Yadi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana