Telangana High Court
WP/1344/2004 of Mohd. Ali Yadgar, s/o late Md.Hussain yadgar, Vs The Commissioner, on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2004 Dated 31st December, 2009 Between: Mohd Ali Yadgar and two others …Petitioners And The Commissioner and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Syed Khader Masthan for Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2004
Dated 31st December, 2009
Between:
Mohd Ali Yadgar and two others …PetitionersAnd The Commissioner and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Syed Khader Masthan for Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following
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:
In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners, who are theowners of Shop Nos.16, 19 and 21 and 22 respectively at SuryalokComplex, Abids, Hyderabad, is that respondent No.2 raised structurein gross violation of conditions laid down by respondent No.1 videpermit dated 31.08.1979. The petitioners further pleaded that in activecollusion with respondent No.1, respondent No.2 has closed the cellararea totally and constructed a Zinc shed in the area left for set backson the northern side and leased out the same to a Printing Press. Thepetitioners are stated to have given detailed representation dated10.11.2003 to respondent No.1 pointing out the above mentionedirregularities with a request to him to take appropriate action forremoval of the structures raised contrary to the permit conditions. Thepetitioners felt aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 in actingon the said representation.
Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter-affidavit and noone appeared for them at the hearing. Respondent No.3, who is theSecretary of Suryalok Building Shops and Offices Owners Association,which is concerned with the area where respondent No.2 hasallegedly raised unauthorised constructions, filed a counter-affidavit,wherein he, inter alia, admitted that respondent No.2 has no right toconstruct a wall on the western side of the complex and therefore, thewall erected by him on the said site is unauthorised and deserves tobe demolished.
Respondent No.1 has not responded to the notice of this Courtand he has failed to inform this Court whether any action has beentaken by him on the representation submitted by the petitioners and ifnot the reason therefor. Respondent No.1, who is vested with thestatutory obligation to initiate appropriate action for removal ofunauthorised construction, cannot be complacent and indifferent to thegrievances expressed by the affected parties. Respondent No.1 is,therefore, directed to act forthwith on the representation of thepetitioners. If it is found that respondent No.2 has raised compoundwall or any other structure contrary to the conditions contained in thepermit, he shall take immediate steps to remove the same by followingthe prescribed procedure. The said action shall be initiated byrespondent No.1 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 31[st] December, 2009vrn