Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
K. Divya – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, GHMC, Hyd and four – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim and property background (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments supporting the petitioner's stance (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents' arguments against the petition (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis and observations (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. judicial reasoning leads to the decision (Para 19) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the court (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing Notice, dated 20.02.2015, vide No.S-III/TPS/C-X/GHMC/2015 under Section 452 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HMC Act, 1955’) and the further proceedings initiated through notice, dated 04.03.2015, issued under Section 636 of the Act, to demolish/remove the Pent House of premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/J- III/443/A/16, Orange Homes Impression, Road No.86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 a
Authorities must adhere to procedural fairness and cannot act arbitrarily when authorized actions affect property ownership, especially when statutory appeals are pending.
Demolition proceedings of regularized structures must comply with due process, and prior regularization must be acknowledged in actions taken by municipal authorities.
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
