Telangana High Court
WP/27533/2007 of E. Shanakaraiah, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, on 31 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 27533 of 2007 Between: E. Shanakaraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHWRIT PETITION NO : 27533 of 2007
Between:
E. Shanakaraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, ..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, rep byits Chairman.
2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak Division, at Medak.
4 The Tahasildar, Jinnaram Mandal, Jinnaram, Medak District.
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying todemolish the house of the petitioner in Sy.No.44 bearing D.No.14.117/21,Bollaram Village, Jinnaram Madnal, Medak District even though it wasgranted by the Government vide Patta Certificate No.A/388/91 dated30.1.1992 without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary unjustagainst the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300-A ofthe Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not todemolish the house of the petitioner ..
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitionand the affidavit filed in support there of and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and ofSri M. Dhanunjaya Reddy, Standing Counsel for HUDA for theRespondent No.1 and of G.P for Revenue for the Respondents 2 to 4.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER
“Post on 31.12.2007 in the Motion List.
Meanwhile, status quo with regard to the possession of thepetitioner’s house shall be maintained.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman.
2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak Division, at Medak.
4 The Tahasildar, Jinnaram Mandal, Jinnaram, Medak District.
5. One CC to Sri Sri M. Pratap Singh, Advocate (OPUC)
6. Two CCs to the G.P.for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
(OUT)
7.One spare copy.
RV
HIGH COURT
VEJ
Dated 24.12.2007
Note: Post on 31.12.2007 in the Motion List.
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.
ORDER
W.P.M.P.No. 27533 of 2007
Status quo
HIGH COURTRVDated 26.12.2007VEJDated 24.12.2007Note: Post on 31.12.2007 in the Motion List.
ORDER
W.P.M.P.No. 27533 of 2007
Status quo