D.Sai Reddy v. Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 s. 433
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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to stop my repair works and threatening to demolish petitioner property bearing No.7-1-451/20, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, without any notice or without any authority in law, as being wholly illegal, untenable and unjustified, as otherwise the petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss and injury Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following
ORDER:
Admittedly the petitioner has not obtained any permission for the repairs as contemplated under Section 433 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). If that be the case, the Officers of the respondents are justified in stopping such construction, which the petitioner was making without obtaining any permission. In view of the same, I see no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.Gopal Reddy, J Date: 24.08.2004 To 1 The Urban Land Development Authority, Rep.by its Chairman, Begumpet, Hyderabad 2 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner & Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 3 Two CD Copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 — s. 433.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Aug 2004. The bench was A GOPAL 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.