The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a property owner challenging interference with construction, accepting the petitioner's submission to withdraw the petition following deviation in construction and demolition of unauthorized structures.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I i
[32e6 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 5352 OF 2020
Between:
Kasireddy Shilpa @ Padamati Shilpa, Wo K. Vinay Kumar, Aged about 34years. Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.8-7-95/31, UrmilaNagar, TeachersColony, Hasthinapuram, Karmanghat Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State
-..pETtTlONER
AND
Corporation,L.B.Nagar,Saroornagar,Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt maybe pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more partlcularly one in the nature of, Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interferingwath the peaceful ongoing construction by following the. sanctioned plan vide Permit No.3/C3/16426/2019 D1.14-11-2019 in respect of thepetitionershouse bearing No.8-7-89/49, on Plot No.49. in Sy.No.59 Part, Ward No.8, BlockNo.6, Chaitanya Nagar, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, RangaReddy Districtas arbitrary, illegal, improper and unjust and against theprinciples of natural justice and contrary to HMC Act, 1955 and consequently direct therespondents not to interfere with the ongoingpeaceful construction over thepetitioners property without following dueprocess of law.
il2il
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition undr r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circL mstances stated in the affadavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may l,e pleased to direct the respondents no to rnterfere with the ongoing peaceful cons ruction vade permit No.3/C3/16426/201 ) Dl 14-11-2019 in respect of the petitron)rs h,luse bearing No.8-7-89/49, on P lt No.49, in Sy No.59 Part, Ward No.8. Blo;< No 6, Chaitanya Nagar, Karmangha Village, Saroornagar Mandal. Ranga Rec c1,,, District without following due proce is of law, pendang disposal of the main writ t,etition. Counsel for the Pe itioner: SRt. V. VEDA VIKAS
Counsel for the Re:ipondent No.1: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMI ittiTFtATION AND URBAN DEVELO]MENT
Counsel for the Re:ipondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SAMPATH PRAB AKAR REDDY, SC FOR G}IMC
The Court made th( following: ORDER
I I II
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
1VRIT PETITION No. 5352 of 2O2O
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with construction of the petitioner by following the sanctioned plan vide permit No.3/C3l 16426/2019 dated 14.11.2019 in respect of the petitioner's house bearing No.8-7-89/49, plot No.49, admeasuring an extent of 267 sq. yards in Sy.No.59 Part, Ward No.8, Block No.6, Chaitanya Nagar, Karmalghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illega1, contrary to law and arbitrary.
-,)
No.2-Municigat Corporation, without issuing any notice or withoutprcviding any opportunityof persorlzrl hearing' is interferin3with theconstruction activitywhich constrained'he petitionerto hle the Writ Pe'itiorr'This Hon'ble Cout twas pleasedto grant interimrlirection.on ll.O3.2O2O,rhich reads as under:
" Learned StandingCounsel forGruater Hyde'abad MunicipatCorporation appeanng for rispcnd.ent Nos.2 and3, on instntction's,suL rnils thit as tlepetitioner is makingcanstru:tion clubb'rng both theplots together apart fromla7lino one r,rcre floor, therespondent authoities u olLld issue notice tohim.
Admittedlg, as ondate, no notice hr-s been issue C to the petitioner'
[n those circumstances,as long as the petiti mer is makingconstruction in accordqrrce u.rith the sanctionedplan,without follouingdue process, the respondents shallnot take ang -aerci.ue action uith respect to the petitio rcr's consl ntction."
situation, hirs constructed3'd floor slab and pent house contrary to thesanction plan, and th:refc're,the respondents initiatedaction following due prt'cessof law'
t
I
directed the municipal authorities to file a report stating the deviations committed by the petitioner on the next date of hearing and also directed the Registry not to allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition.
t
I
-+
7 . Ir vit:w of the above, learneci cot nsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the \irit I)etition.
withdrawn. There shall be no order as t() cos-s.
Asa r;eqttel, the miscellaneous petitrtns. if qrry
pending in t re Writ Petition, shall also stand :lost:d.
SD/.P.PADI IA NABHA REDDY ASSIs-.,ANr REGIFTRAR //TRUE COPY// t' S t:(:TION OFFICER
To, 1 One CC to S 'i V. Veda Vrkas. Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs tor jp roi MrniCipjr Administrairon anil uroar Dlrt'loprrent' High Court forthe )tate -Sanrpatn of Telariganaat Hyderabad tOU-l 3. One CC toSt Pra"bhakar Reddy.SC FoR GHM( [:)PtlC] 4. Two CD CoPi :S CHR I]S psq
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 910112023
ORDER
W.P.No.5352 of 2020
e IrATE
t,: : .,i
i (.
$gitB$8
\ j".L
il..,1-7
.<. /
\ I ri-pl\ ,,
DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRI,WN WITHOUT C(ISTS
4 Ggul
E8k 6't" I ,'.
Kasireddy Shilpa @ Padamati Shilpa
State of Telangana
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
