NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, P.V.SANJAY KUMAR
K. Vivek Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M)/Department, Hyderabad – Respondent
(Per Nisar Ahmad Kakru, C.J.)
The judgment handed down by my learned Brother, Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar, originates from a painstaking exercise. He has highlighted detailed facts arising out of the pleadings, as also the impact of the relevant statutes/rules/ regulations. Undoubtedly a highly appreciable endeavour and I am in total agreement with the judgment in so far as it upholds the validity of Rule 7.1 (xiv) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006, relating to the reduction of requirements and standards of the setback and change of use of the land but I could not persuade myself to fall in line with some of the conclusions, not because of tall thinking to present an innovative or a novel idea but to ensure real and substantial justice between the parties.
2. Another conclusion, I am in agreement with my learned Brother, is referable to the challenge thrown by medium of W.P. Nos. 1259 of 2010 and 1677 of 2010, to G.O.Ms. No.539 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department dated 27.7.2007, permitting the change of use of land to the extent of 500 square meters in the premises bearing number D.No.2-220/K/9 in Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony for residential
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat: 2008 (5) SCJ 499 = (2008) 5 SCC 33. (Para 28)
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Laxmi Devi: 2008 (2) SCJ 723 = (2008) 4 SCC 720.(Para 28)
J.K. Industries Limited v. Union of India: (2007) 13 SCC 673. (Para 28)
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar: AIR 1958 SC 538. (Para 28)
State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Krishnamurthy: (2006) 4 SCC 517 = 2006 (4) SCJ 375. (Para 29)
Hamdard Dawakhana v. The Union of India: AIR 1960 SC 554. (Para 30)
S.G.Jaisinghani v. Union of India: AIR 1967 SC 1427. (Para 30)
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India: (1969) 2 SCC 166. (Para 30)
A.N.Parasuraman v. Stare of Tamil Nadu: (1989) 4 SCC 683. (Para 30)
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress: AIR 1991 SC 101. (Para 30)
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab: (1994) 3 SCC 569. (Para 30)
Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1974) 4 SCC 788. (Para 46)
Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi: 2008 (8) SCJ 784 = (2008) 9 SCC 177 (Pard 46)
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala: (1999) 3 SCC 422. (Para 46)
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pradesh: AIR 1954 SC 322. (Para 46)
Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1961 SC 1527. (Para 46)
eharan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy: (1978) 2 SCC 500. (Para 46)
State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh: (1989) 2 SCC 505. (Para 52)
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana: (1995) 2 SCC 577. (Para 59)
I.Venkat Rao v. Municipal Corporation of Warangal: 2000 (2) ALD 411. (Para 64)
Sri K.Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.Muddappa: (1991) 4 SCC 54. (Para 65)
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana: (2001) 4 SCC 215 = 2001 (3) ALT 18.1 (DN SC). (Para 66)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.