Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.8342 of 2009
ORDER:
According to the petitioners, they are the lawful owners and possessors of the house property bearing Municipal No.10-5-4/1/B & 10- 5-4/1/B/1 admeasuring 1000 sq. yards situated at Masab Tank, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from one Noorunnisa Begum and Nawab Shujath Ali Khan under two registered sale deeds dated
30.08.2001 and 10.09.2001. The main grievance of the petitioners is that since the certified extracts of layout map and property tax assessment in respect of the said property are very much essential for them to safeguard the said property from encroachers, they submitted an application to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad, on
Operative part
04.01.2009, seeking issuance of the said certified extracts, but till date the same has not been acted upon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad, is directed to consider the representation, dated 04.01.2009, purported to have been filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, as per law, as expeditiously as possible. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
22.04.2009 v v _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Act, 1955.
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.