Writ petitions challenging infrastructure interference with construction as arbitrary were dismissed on withdrawal by the petitioner after authorities reported building deviations and demolished unauthorized structures.
Writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
[32s6 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (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: 5354 OF 2020
Between:
Kasireddy Vinay Kumar, S/o Late K. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o H.No.8-7-95/31, Urmila Nagar, Teachers Colony, Hasthinapuram, Karmanghat Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...PETITIONER
AND
,..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewlth, the High Court may be. pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of, Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful ongoing construction by following the sanctioned plan vide Permit No.3/C3/1650612019 Dt.15-11-2019 in respect of the petitioner's Plot No.49, admeasuring an extent of 133.5 in Sy.No.sg Part, Ward No.8, Block No.6, Chaitanya Nagar, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary, illegal, improper and unjust and against the principles of naturaljustice and contrary to HMC Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the ongoing peaceful construction over the petitioner's property without following due process of law.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition unc er Section 151 CPCpraying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit file I in support of thepetition, the High Cour nray bepleased to direct the respon,lents not to interfere with the ongoingp,:aceful construction vide Permit No.3/( )3/'1650612019 D1.15-11-2019 in resoect o tlrepretitioners Plot No.49, admeasuri,rg an extent of 133.5 in Sy.No.59 Part, Wa'd No 8, Block No.6, Chaitanya Nagar Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar lt4ar cl :1, Ranga Reddy District without fo owing dueprocess of law,pending dispcsz:l of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the P, rtitioner: SRI V.VEDA VIKAS Counsel for the R rspondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN ANt) UR3ANDEV Counsel for the R )spondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SAMPATH PRA lI{AKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC
The Court made tlre following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 5354 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 pian vide permit No.3/C3l16506/2019 dated 15.11.2Oi9 in respect of the petitioner's plot, admeasuring an extent of 133.5 sq. yards in Sy.No.59 Part, Ward No.8, Block No.6, Chaitanya Nagar, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as i11egal, contrary to law and arbitrary.
l
granted by the respondent-Municipal Corporrttron'The respondent No.2-MunicipalCorporation,with,rutissuing an1. notict or withoutprovidingany oppl )rtunity of personal L earing, is interfering with thecorrstruction activity which constrained thepetitioner to file the Writ Pctition. T ris HonbleCourt was pleasedto grant interim
direction or r I 1.03.2020,which readsas under:
" Learned Standing Counsel for()rett<zr Hy lerabad Municipo| Corporation appearing .for res tondent Nos.2 and 3, on instruction.s, subrniis tlTa t as thepetitioner is mokingcorlstruc:ion ctu tbin4l both the plots together aparl froplqri.rrg ont ntore Jloor, the respondent authoitiesux rtld iss rc notice to him. Admittedlg, as on date, na notice hasbe<.n iss red to the petitioner. In those circumstances, as long astl'"e pet tioruzr is making construction in accordc tu],e uit\ the sanctioned plan, uithout follctu.tingj:rc prc.ess. the respondents shall not take)ri.A coerciue action u.tith respect to thepetitioner's cot struction. "
situation, )as constructed 3'd floor slab and trx)nthouse contrary . o the sanction plan, and "the 'efor,:, the
responden s initiated action following duepro( (lss of law.
t \
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.
I
petitioner s reks permission to withdraw the Writ Pet,ition.
B. l ccordingly, the Writ Petition is dis rrLissed as
withdrawn. There shail be no order as to costs
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending in'he Writ Petition, shall also stand clrsed.
SD/. MO HD.SAN,\I.JLL,AHANSARI ASSIST!.I..IT ITEGISTRAR
6' //TRUE COPY//
SiI:CTIONOFFICER
I
to ',. ,*o CCs to 3P FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV' H 1;h Court for the , 3'f:""% T"ri A?il?$l'{,iRfsht"t!&"rprss, . 3 one cc to{ Rl sAMPf,rA- di BijAKAR-deoovl sc F()lir GFMc toPUCl 4. Two CD Colies
PSKSW\"i"
HIGH COUIIT
DATED:191)112023
ORDER
WP.No.535l of 2020
'dE S rA t:
,.
')
) 0 g rEB 2023 t.<br>-}-
-. -n
a
-'-.--.;==,
DISMISSIN i THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDIIAWN WITHOUT COSTS.
q
5rx
Kasireddy Vinay Kumar
The State of Telangana
The Assistant City Planner
The Deputy Commissioner
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
