Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Dilshad Jah – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(Surepalli Nanda, J.)
1. Heard the Senior Designated counsel Mr. Kishore Rai, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ direction or order more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in restricting the Security Clearance for construction of residential houses in the property i.e land admeasuring Ac.1.25.75 Guntas in Sy No 90/P situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to Ground floor as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and consequentially, direct the Second Respondent to consider the Security Clearance for construction of the Ground Plus 2 Upper Floors for residential houses in the property i e land admeasuring 1 Acres 25.75 Guntas in Sy No 90/P situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition is as under:
a) The petitioner is the absolute owner and posses
The restriction on construction to ground floor only was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as prior permissions for G+2 were not duly considered.
The court emphasized the necessity of resolving ambiguities in land survey identification through a joint survey, reaffirming the requirement for relevant authorities to comply with previous judicial....
Point of Law : No such 'NOC' from Defence Authority would be necessary if construction is beyond 10 meters from outer wall of defence installation.
Point of law: There is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with law. Even administrative power to be exercised to fulfill real purpose and not ....
The impugned proceedings were set aside as they were found to be contrary to building permit orders and lacking in factual basis.
A petitioner must establish ownership and prove claims regarding land disputes to secure injunctive relief against construction, particularly when prior judicial outcomes are unfavorable.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to building permissions and procedures outlined under municipal law in construction matters.
Authorities must verify prima facie title when considering construction applications, not resolve complex ownership disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
