Telangana High Court
WP/22085/2008 of M.Dhannu Singh Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 29 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22085 of 2008 Date: December 29, 2009 Between: M. Dhannu Singh, S/o. late Durga Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-3-568, Kachibowli, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.18,
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.22085 of 2008
Date: December 29, 2009
Between:
M. Dhannu Singh, S/o. late Durga Singh,Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business,R/o.H.No.2-3-568, Kachibowli, Ramgopalpet,Secunderabad … Petitioner
And
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Circle No.18, Secunderabad, rep. by itsVice-Chairman, Liberty, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents
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:
This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the first respondent to actupon the representation dated 04-09-2008, which is stated to have beensubmitted by the petitioner, and demolish the structures constructed illegallyby the second respondent in Plot No.38 in Sy.Nos.49, 50 and 51 of D.V.Colony, Kachibowli, Bholakpur village, Nallagutta, Minister Road,Secunderabad.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is makingconstructions in the aforesaid premises without obtaining any sanction planand though he has submitted representation in this regard to the firstrespondent, no action whatsoever is taken.
The City Planner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent-Corporation. In the counter affidavit, while, generally, denying the variousallegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that a notice under Section 452of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is already issued to thesecond respondent and on receipt of the same, he approached the City CivilCourt and obtained injunction orders.
In this writ petition, the petitioner disputes the title and possession ofthe second respondent with regard to the property in question. The saidissue cannot be gone into and decided by this court. It is for the petitioner toworkout his remedies by impleading himself in the suit filed by the secondrespondent. With regard to the allegation of the petitioner regarding theinaction of the respondents on his representation, it is to be seen that the firstrespondent has already issued notice under Section 452 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, but no further steps could be taken in view of theorders of injunction obtained by the second respondent in the suit filed byhim. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the first respondent-Corporation has not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving libertyto the petitioner to implead himself, in the suit stated to have been filed by thesecond respondent. It is made clear that subject to the outcome of theorders in the said suit, it would be open to the first respondent-Corporation toproceed further in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J