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

1983 Supreme(AP) 196

V.MADHAVA RAO, A.SEETHARAM REDDY
SHAM APARTANTE – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER (NOW SPECIAL OFFICER) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad – Respondent


MADHAVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions the levy of betterment drainage imposed undercircular II. No. 533/tp/a1/81 dated 9-4-81 issued by the Municipal corporation Hyderabad is challenged. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in W. P. No. 3102 of 1981 which are common in the batch are as follows: The affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed by one Mr. S. R. Kamath. The petitioners are the builders carrying on the business of constructing multistoreyed complexes and other residential or commercial buildings. The object behind this busi ness is to construct and provide multi-storeyed flats on ownership basis to various families to provide accommodation at reasonable cost in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The petitioners are also carrying on business of constructing commercial complexes for the purpose of housing a shopping centre and having various types of shops at one place with a view to provide the benefit to the public to facilitate purchase of all their requirements at a single place.

( 2 ) THE first resdondent Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter called the Corporation) is a statutory body having authority and jurisdict







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