The Commissioner v. Velpula Narahari
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N, TUKARAMJI WRIT APPEAL NO: '11'12 OF 2018 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 21 .09,2016 in W.P.No. 30346 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. Between:
1. The Commissioner, GHtMC, Hyderabad.
2. rhe Deputy commissioner, GHMC, rMatkajg,,, 9]lf!";llifl,1lflE iri, R.R. district.
SPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND
1. Velpula Narahari, S/o V. Pochaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Private Job, H. No.10-5-781/1/A/1 , Venkatnagar, Thukaramgate, near Venkateswara Temple, North Lalaguda' secunderabad ....RES''NDENT/'ET'r.NER
2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records, R.R. district.
4. TheTahsildar, Malkajgiri l\rlandal, R.R. district.
5. The Station House Officer, It/alkajgiri, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are formal parties) ...RES'.NDENT'
lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 in WP.No.30346 of 2018, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BL '
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDR,q SIIARMA AND TI E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJ]:
WRIT APPEAL No.1112 of 2Ola JUDGMENT:
(, er the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Shorma) Learnec counsel for the appellants stated that respondent tlo.1/Velpula Narahari has approached the authorities s .ating that he wants Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) in place of building permission and the same has been gra rted to him.
Learner counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/re rpondent No.1 herein has fairly stated before this Court that th: present writ appeal be disposed of' Accordi egly, the writ appeal is disposed of. Miscelii Lneous petitions, if any, sha,ll stand closed. There shall Le no order as to costs.
//TRUE COPY/i 'r,.''Am-Sr[E?HXfl (+ I SECTION OFFICER to',1. -r*oCCstothe Addl Advocate General' High Court for the State of Telangana' ,. SJ"Tlc to Sri ( h Dhanamjava Advocate toPUCl
3. Two CD CoPies
4. One SPare c;oP 7 MBC TR X\'\x
HIGH COURT DATED: 2911212021 64;;;
\ i+) .J 0 5 rtB 2122 r aa
JUDGMENT
WA.No.1112 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOLIT COSTS v w