Reddy District v. District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Jun 2009
- Bench
- R SUBHASH REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of, directing the respondent/Commissioner not
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 s. 2(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th June 2009
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issued an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent interfering with the construction of boundary wall around sy. No.6 and 7 measuring Ac.20-25 gts., as shown in the Map situated at Saipur (Village), Tandur (Mandal), Ranga Reddy (District), with out disposing of the petitioners Application dated 19-1-2001, for grant of permission within the statutory period, as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the construction of boundary wall around the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following :
ORDER :
In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondent in interfering with the construction of boundary wall around their land bearing Survey Numbers 6 and 7, as illegal and arbitrary.
When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that though permission is not required for construction of a boundary wall, under bonafide impression, the petitioners have made an application seeking permission. He submitted that asmuch as the construction is limited to boundary wall, it does not fall under the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2 (3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, and as such, no permission is required for such construction. Even the learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that for a boundary wall less than two metres of height, no permission is contemplated under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act,
1965. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the construction is already completed and no further constructions are taken up.
Operative part
Asmuch as it is submitted that the construction in question is only a boundary wall less than two metres of height, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent/Commissioner not to interfere with the said construction.
Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th June 2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of, directing the respondent/Commissioner not
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 2(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jun 2009. The bench was R SUBHASH 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.