Writ Petition No. 24750 of 2007 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the
Judgment
These two writ petitions are interconnected. The petitioner in one writ petition figured as respondent in the other and vice-versa.
Operative part
Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner in W.P.No.24750 of 2008 i.e. Sri Agisam Veerappa, and the petitioner in W.P.No.3657 of 2008 i.e., Sri S.Md.Kaleem, are the owners of properties, situated opposite to Court Complex, Kadiri Municipality. Each makes an allegation against the other, stating that the construction was made in deviation from the sanctioned plan and thereby inconvenience is caused. On noticing that the allegations made by the petitioners, against each other, are identical, this Court is called for a report from the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality. A report submitted by him together with the sketch discloses that both the petitioners have deviated from sanctioned plan and both of them have submitted applications under Building Penalization Scheme. The applications are pending. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to either of the petitioners. Much would depend upon the out come of the applications submitted by them for penalization. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the applications filed by them under Building Penalization Scheme. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:18.01.2010. GJ
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jan 2010. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.