M/s. Namishree Infrastructure & Projects Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad & Anr. v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Secunderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the petitioners:
Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondent: Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3170 and 20459 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:-
Writ Petition No.3170 of 2011 is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings of the respondent, whereby it has cancelled the regularisation orders issued in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the lands covered by the said regularisation orders are ceiling surplus lands. Writ Petition No.20459 of 2011 is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not processing the petitioners’ applications for regularisation of the plots treating the land as ceiling surplus land. At the hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited the attention of this Court to orders, dated 04.03.2009 and
30.03.2009 in Writ Petition Nos.3249 of 2009 and 24026 of 2008 respectively, wherein this Court has declared that possession of the lands, covered by the said two Writ Petitions, were taken on
08.05.2008 by which time the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, “the Act”) has come into force with effect from
Operative part
28.03.2008 and that those lands fall outside the scope of the Act and cannot be treated as surplus lands. The learned counsel submitted that following the said two orders of this Court, the respondent has to reconsider its decision and restore the earlier order regularising the plots in respect of Writ Petition No.3170 of 2011 and process the applications and regularise the plots covered by Writ Petition No.20459 of 2011. Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing counsel, appearing for the respondent submitted that if the plots in respect of which the petitioners have been seeking regularisation are covered by the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3249 of 2009 and 24026 of 2008, the respondent will reconsider and pass appropriate orders in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that conversely, if the lands in question are not covered by these two orders, the respondent will take appropriate decision and pass an order in that regard. Having regard to the above submissions of the learned counsel, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the orders in Writ Petition Nos.3249 of 2009 and 24026 of 2008 and regularise the plots in favour of the petitioners, if it is found that the said plots are covered by the two Writ Petitions, referred to above, after giving notice to the petitioners. The respondent shall do the needful within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.No.3930 of 2011 in W.P.No.3170 of 2011 and WPMP.No.24815 of 2011 in W.P.No.20459 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. Date: 30.08.2011 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Repeal Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Aug 2011. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA 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.