Telangana High Court
WP/8123/2007 of Amaravathi Township Welfare Association, Administrative Vs Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri, Urban on 31 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8123 of 2007 31.12.2007 Between: Amaravathi Township Welfare Association, Ramakrishnapuram, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Secretary Mr.K. Ravisankar & others … Petitioners AND Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority,
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
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 8123 of 2007
31.12.2007
Between:
Amaravathi Township Welfare Association,Ramakrishnapuram, Vijayawada,Rep. by its Secretary Mr.K. Ravisankar& others … Petitioners
AND
Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri UrbanDevelopment Authority,Vijayawada rep. by its Vice Chairman … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Girish Kumar Counsel for the respondent : Smt. K. Aruna
O R D E R:
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties,the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the interlocutory stage.
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondent in issuing notices seeking cancellation ofallotment of plots on the ground that the petitioners have notcommenced and completed the construction on the allotted plots asillegal.
At the hearing, Sri P. Girish Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioners submitted that the notices impugned in this writ petition areissued by the respondent without any jurisdiction. The learnedcounsel stated that neither under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, ‘the Act’) nor underthe conditions of allotment, any stipulation is made for completion ofconstruction on the plots allotted and registered in favour of thepetitioners and that, therefore, the impugned notices are withoutjurisdiction.
Smt. K. Aruna, learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted thatthough such a stipulation is not contained either in the Act or under theterms of allotment, in the interest of development of the plot, therespondent issued the said notices.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties. The respondent is a statutory authorityconstituted under the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, its duty toact within the bounds of the provisions of the Act and the Rules madethere under. If the respondent is not vested with the power to cancelthe allotment of plots that have already been registered in favour of thepetitioners on the ground of failure to construct buildings therein, it isbeyond its power to issue any notices of the nature which wereimpugned in this writ petition. It has come out that even under theterms of allotment, the respondent has not reserved any such right. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned notices issued by therespondent are without jurisdiction and are accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 10436of 2007 is dismissed and order dated 20.04.2007 is vacated. W.V.M.P.No. 3030 of 2007 filed by the respondent for vacating orderdated 20.04.2007 is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld