Writ Petition No. 14347 of 2005 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
respondent Corporation, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 s. 636
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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice with Sl.No.17, Book No.110 dated 2-7-2005 of the first respondent posted on existing structure at 4.00 P.M. ON 2-7- 2005 and quash the same after declaring the same after declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary against principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the HMC Act and Supreme Court decisions, and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the existing construction raised by the petitioner of G + 3 floors with valid permission in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.NARSIMHA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
Operative part
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 02.07.2005, issued by the 1st respondent under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The petitioner alleged to be the absolute owner and the possessor of the property bearing No.3-5-1093/15/A, admeasuring 541 sq.yards, situated at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and he made constructions with due permission of the 1st respondent Corporation. It is stated that when the respondent authorities threatened to demolish the constructions without issuing any notice, the petitioner approached the civil Court and filed O.S.No.1091 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further stated that the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.882 of 2005 along with the suit, seeking interim injunction against the respondent herein, and the learned Senior Civil Judge granted ‘status-quo’ to be maintained by both parties and the matter is pending for consideration. In the meanwhile, the respondent, without obeying the Court Orders, issued the impugned notice. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation fairly submitted that by mistake the impugned notice was issued without having knowledge of the status quo order, passed in I.A.No.882 of 2005 in O.S.No.1091 of 2005. He further submitted that after issuing the impugned notice, the respondent Corporation realized the fact of status quo order pending. The learned standing counsel also submitted that the respondent Corporation would not take any action against the constructions of the petitioner till raising of the status quo order, pending in I.A.No.882 of 2005 in O.S.No.1091 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Recording the above submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Dated: 04.07.2005 Dsr To:
The Commissioner, The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad
The Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Abids, Hyderabad
Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: respondent Corporation, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 — s. 636.
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.