Telangana High Court
WP/39946/2012 of Mohd. Ali Nal,vaz Khan Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 39946 OF 2012 O R D E R : This Writ Petition can be disposed of as the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the representation said to have been submitted by him on
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAOWRIT PETITION No. 39946 OF 2012
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 can be disposed of as the petitioner sought fora writ of mandamus for declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 innot considering the representation said to have been submitted by himon 01.11.2012 as illegal.
On 01.11.2012, the petitioner appears to have filed arepresentation before the Commissioner, Greater HyderabadMunicipal Corporation asserting that he was the owner and possessorof the land, admeasuring 5109 square yards, forming part of MunicipalHouse No.11-4-649, Lakdikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad. He assertsthat he has purchased the said property through a registered sale deedNo.1469 of 1962, dated 25.09.1962 and since the date of its purchase,he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The3[rd] respondent Smt. Farzana Khatoon, it is alleged by the petitioner, asto have created some documents for about 1100 square yards out ofthe site referred to supra and on that basis, she was approachingRespondents 1 and 2 for securing the permission for construction of abuilding.
Though the municipal corporation is not liable to enter upon andadjudicate a title dispute, but nonetheless, the Corporation is under anobligation to satisfy that the applicant has prima facie title to theproperty on which constructions are proposed to be made and thenalone, accord the necessary building permission. In the process ofaccording building permission, if any objections are raised, theobjections must be considered and dealt with in accordance with Law. In fact, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for theCorporation would say that Corporation will consider, without fail, the objections raised by the petitioner before any such application of the 3[rd] respondent is taken up for consideration.
Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondents 1and 2 to deal with the objections raised by the petitioner and passappropriate orders. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shallstand disposed of.
------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)
28[th] December 2012
Issue CC by tomorrow.vhb/ksld