Telangana High Court
WP/27547/2007 of V. Laxman, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, on 24 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27547 of 2007 24.12.2007 Between: V. Laxman … Petitioner AND The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Srinivasulu O R D E R: This writ petition
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27547 of 2007
24.12.2007
Between:
V. Laxman
… Petitioner
AND
The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Srinivasulu
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 theaction of the respondents in seeking to allot premises bearing HouseNo. 28-LIG, Madhuban Residential Complex, Mailardevpally,Rajendernagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District without issuingprior notice and registering the same in favour of the petitioner asillegal and arbitrary.
In his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitionerclaimed that he purchased the above said property which wasoriginally allotted to Sri Y. Suresh, S/o Y. Satyanarayana throughproceedings dated 27.03.1989 issued by the respondents. Thepetitioner claimed that after the purported purchase, he requested therespondents to register the property in his name and that he is ready topay installments, if any due from the original allottee. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that the respondents, without registering the property in his name, are seeking to allot it to third parties.
I have heard Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for thepetitioner.
In my view, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. Thepetitioner has not filed any scrap of paper to show that he purchasedthe property from Sri Y.Suresh and he has also not filed the documentcontaining the conditions subject to which the property was said tohave been allotted to Sri Y. Suresh on 27.03.1989. As per thepetitioner’s own showing, the alleged original allottee has not clearedthe installments towards the value of the property. Unless thepetitioner is able to prima facie show that the terms of allotment permitthe allottee to sell the property in favour of the third parties even beforeclearing the dues and getting the property registered in his name, hewill not have any locus to maintain this writ petition.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36026of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.
24.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld