Advocates:
K. RAM KUMAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1890 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT:

Kavitha Reddy & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2003

BENCH:

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & Ashok Bhan

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1987 of 2001]

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

Leave is granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Division Bench of the

High Court of (Judicature) Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

Writ Appeal No.769 of 2000 dated December 2, 2000, the

Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is in

appeal before this Court.

The respondents filed Writ Petition No.4187 of 2000

seeking a writ of mandamus to declare Letter No.2967/P4/H/99

dated February 18, 2000 issued by the appellant was illegal and

arbitrary, to quash the same and for a consequential direction to

the appellant to release the plan without insisting on the

production of the Urban Land Ceiling Clearance Certificate

from the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling. A learned

Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition

following the judgment of the same High Court in Writ

Petition No.23100 of 1999 passed on November 19, 1999. A

perusal of the said judgment discloses that it was rendered

following the judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition

No.898 of 1999 dated August 3, 1999, wherein a similar relief

was prayed for. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed that

order dated August 3, 1999 in Writ Appeal No.315 of 2000

which was dismissed on April 19, 2000. It appears that Special

Leave Petition (C) No.9491 of 2000 seeking leave to appeal

against the judgment of April 19, 2000 was dismissed by this

Court on July 13, 2000.

It may be relevant to mention here that the judgment in

Writ Petition No.898 of 1999 was rendered by following the

judgment in Writ Appeal No.968 of 1998 dated October 22,

1998. That judgment was carried in appeal to this court, by

special leave, in Civil Appeal No.7348 of 2001 - Government

of A.P. & Ors. vs. J.Sridevi & Ors. [2002 (5) SCC 37]. By

judgment rendered on April 12, 2002, the order of the High

Court, under challenge, was set aside and the case was

remanded to the competent authority to decide the matter afresh

without being influenced by any observations made in the said

judgment.

It will be relevant to mention that against the order of the

learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

No.23100 of 1999 allowing the Writ Petition on November 19,

1999, Writ Appeal No.44 of 2000 was filed which was

dismissed on February 17, 2000. That judgment was carried in

appeal to this Court, by special leave, in Civil Appeal No.3996

of 2002 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.1342/2001) and it

was allowed on July 12, 2002 following the judgment of this

Court in J.Sridevi’s case (supra).

Mr.M.N.Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondents, strenuously contends that against the judgment

in the case of Lata Rani, Special Leave Petition (C) No.9491 of

2000, was dismissed on July 13, 2000 and she availed the

benefit of the judgment of the High Court; acting upon the

order under challenge, the respondents completed the

construction and if the appeal is allowed and the order of the

High Court is set aside she would be put to great hardship and

irreparable loss.

It has already been noticed that the first case which was

decided by the High Court was that of J.Sridevi in Writ Petition

No.5929 of 1997 which was upheld in Writ Appeal No.968 of

1998 by the Division Bench. It was that case which was

followed by the High Court in the case of Lata Rani (Writ

Petition No.898 of 1999) as well as in the case of

U.B.Properties (Writ Petition No.23100 of 1999). The

judgment of the High Court in Sridevi’s case (supra) has been

reversed by this Court. Consequently, the dismissal of t