Rama Vidyasagar v. The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3986 of 2020 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation. 2.

Having heard both the counsel and from a perusal of the impugned proceedings, vide notice dated 06.02.2020, it appears that there is some confusion. In the impugned proceedings, it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show-cause notice stating that his wife purchased the land through registered sale deed and she is in possession and there is no encroachment of the land. Having said that there is no encroachment of the land, the request made by the petitioner herein is rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted reply to the show-cause notice. 3.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that the Corporation have already issued a final notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act, vide Notice No.UC.34/W.No.22/CIR1/TPBO/GWMC/2020, dated 19.02.2020. 4.

Thereupon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to challenge the said final notice. 5.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause would survive in the writ petition, since a final notice under Section 636 of the Act is already issued.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the final notice issued under Section 6363 of the Act, vide Notice No.UC.34/W.No.22/CIR1/TPBO/GWMC/2020, dated 19.02.2020, as per law. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 25th February 2020 mar