N.Santosh v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority And Another

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2842 of 2020 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under: '...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing the representation dated 10.12.2019 made by the petitioner to declare the layout accorded by the then HUDA vide Permit No.7108/MP2/PLG/HUDA/98 in favour of the 2nd respondent is in Sy.No.156/1 not in Sy.No.156/2 part and 157 part of Kukatpalli, Hydernagar Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose the representation dated 10.12.2019 made by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent while applying for lay-out to the 1st respondentHMDA, included the land of the petitioner in Survey Nos.156/2 part and 157 part of Kukatpally, Hydernagar Village, Ranga Reddy District, vide permit No.7108/MP2/PLG/HUDA/98 in favour of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 10.12.2019, to the 1st respondent to consider the objections raised by him. However, the 1st respondent, in spite of receipt of the said representation, is not passing orders in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the mandatory provisions of the Act. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 10.12.2019, of the petitioner, would meet the ends of justice.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 10.12.2019, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, it is made clear that the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue notice to all concerned including the 2nd respondent herein, while considering the objections raised by the petitioner. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 12th February 2020 mar