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

1991 Supreme(AP) 394

J.ESWARA PRASAD, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Caskon Tea Industries Ltd. , Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Secunderabad – Respondent


V. SIVARAMAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER claims to be a Small Scale Industry. It purchased Plot Nos. 138 to 141 in Medchal Industrial Estate. Those plots have been developed by the industrial Infrastructurecorporation of thestate. Petitioner had paid the value fixed by the Corporation. According to it, the amount spent by the Corporation on developmentof the land was also included in the price. After the purchase, it applied to Medchal Gram Panchayat within whose area the Industrial Estate lies for permission to construct an industrial building. That application was submitted on 1st September, 1981. It commenced construction thereafter and completed the same in April, 1982. On 24th November, 1982,1st respondent hyderabad Urban Development Authority - issued a notice under Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 requiring it to demolish the unauthorised construction on the ground that it had not obtained. permission as provided for in Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. Petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent - Vice-Chairman of the Hyderabad Urban development Authority - under Section 42 (2) of the Act. That appeal was filed on 11th December, 1982.













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