Telangana High Court
WP/27781/2007 of Chilaka Yellappa, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented on 27 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27781 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Chilaka Yellappa … Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle, Ranga Reddy District & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27781 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
Chilaka Yellappa
… Petitioner
AND
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle,Ranga Reddy District & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana Counsel for the respondents : Sri Kodanda Rama Rao
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theinaction on the part of the respondents in granting constructionpermission to the petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 14 and 15 in SurveyNo.42 of Ramanthapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Sri Kodanda Rama Rao representing Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondentNo.1 and perused the record.
It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for theparties that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered bythe order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16397 of 2004, dated13.04.2005 and order dated 06.02.2007 in Writ Appeal No.124 of2007.
The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16397 of 2004directed respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitionerfor building permission in accordance with the building rules andregulations and master plan etc. of the Urban Development Authorityand if all the requirements are satisfied, he shall not reject the samemerely on the basis that the plot falls within the full tank level ofPeddacheruvu. The learned Judge also directed the petitioner thereinto give an undertaking that in the event the property is acquired forpreserving the land for full tank level, he shall not claim compensationfor the structure to be raised by him. Against the similar order passedin Writ Petition No. 2235 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court, towhich I am a Member, dismissed the writ appeal filed by UppalMunicipality (presently Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation)confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage in terms of order dated 13.04.2005 passed in WritPetition No. 16397 of 2004 with the direction that the same shall beread as part of this order. No costs.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36432of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
27.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld