SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 432

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
N. Suryanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad – Respondent


B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly, one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to notice No. 179 Dated 9-1-1996 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. The petitioners also pray for a consequential direction directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated 11-1-1996 and further to direct the respondents to accept the revised plan purported to have been submitted by the petitioners in respect of the premises in question.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be the true and absolute owner, of plots bearing nos. 6-3-609/37 and 609/38 situated at Anandnagar Colony at Khairtabad, hyderabad. The petitioners are stated to have entered into an agreement with a third party for construction of multi-stories apartments. The petitioners having applied for necessary sanction and permission, obtained the same from the 1st respondent-Corporation vide Permit No. 2/69/67 in Letter No. 105/tp- 5/94 Dated 9-3-1995. The sanction was accorded by the 1st respondent corporation for construction of stilt plus 5 upper floors for r















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top