Telangana High Court
WP/28760/2008 of Smt.P.Manipavitra Vs The Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal on 30 December 2008
MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.NO. 28760 of 2008 ORDER The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein therefore
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
W.P.NO. 28760 of 2008
ORDER
The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners hereintherefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased toissue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction on partof the respondent in regularizing the plots of the petitioners byway of approving the lay out situated in Sy.No.146 ofKondapur Vilalge, Serilingampally Mandal, RangareddyDistrict under the “Layout Regularization Scheme” is highlyillegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, dereliction of duties andviolation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14and 300-A of the Constitution of India and as a consequentialdirection to direct the respondent to regularize the layout withregard to the plot Nos.1 to 46 belongs to the petitionerssituated in Sy.No.146 of Kondapur Vilalge, SerilingampalliMandal, R.R.District forthwith and pass such other order ororders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in theinterest of justice.”
It may not be necessary for this Court to go into variousfacts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitionas the representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.7.2008 isvery much pending with the respondents.
However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentbrought to the notice of this Court stating that severalrepresentations were already filed and the same are pending andfurther, with regard to the land in question, there are civil disputespending.
Even the said submissions may not be necessary fordisposal of this case as the said representations are very muchpending with the respondent-authority.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at theadmission stage with a direction to the respondent to consider therepresentation dated 19.7.2008 and pass appropriate orders withina period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. No costs.
rkk
__________
30-12-2008