Telangana High Court
WP/27694/2005 of Sri Ram Bharoos Vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27694 of 2005 Dated:28.12.2005 Between: Sri Ram Bharoos S/o.Late Ram Awatar R/.o.MCH No.21-6-566 to 571 (New) Chelapura, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Town Planning Section, Hyderabad, and another.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27694 of 2005
Dated:28.12.2005
Between:
Sri Ram Bharoos S/o.Late Ram Awatar
R/.o.MCH No.21-6-566 to 571 (New) Chelapura, Hyderabad
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Town Planning Section, Hyderabad, and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.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.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.27694 of 2005
The petitioner is a resident of Chelapura, Hyderabad. He is residing in HouseNos.21-6-566 to 571. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Section Officer, CircleNo.2, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, alleging that the second respondent,who is a neighbour of the petitioner, in premises No.21-6-565 has taken upunauthorized construction without any sanctioned plan and without leaving anyopen space as required under the Zoning Regulations. The same was received bythe office of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) on 21.12.2005. In themeanwhile, the second respondent has already commenced the construction and heis likely to lay the RC roof. The present writ petition is filed, inter alia, seeking adirection to the first respondent to take action against the illegal and unauthorizedconstruction being taken up by the second respondent.
The learned Standing Counsel for MCH, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, after gettinginstructions in the matter submits that immediately after receiving the complaint ofthe petitioner, a notice under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, was given and the second respondent has approached MCH showing thesanctioned plan for construction of the ground floor and the first floor, and that if anydeviation is made by the second respondent, appropriate action will be takenagainst him. The same is recorded.
The writ petition is filed without any factual foundation, and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
28.12.2005
vs