City Heights Builders India Private Limited v. State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37656 OF 2016 DATED : 02.11.2016 Between :

City Heights Builders India Private Limited, Rep., by its Managing Director, Mohammed Omer Ahmed S/o.Mohd. Mahaboob Quadri, Aged about 41 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.18-13-8/A/LC/28, Plot No.1/A, Bandlaguda, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..

Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others.

..

Respondents This court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37656 of 2016 ORDER :

Petitioner is a real estate developer. This writ petition is instituted on the apprehension that the respondent-Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (2nd respondent) is taking steps to demolish the compound wall and security guard rooms constructed by the petitioner.

Heard Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Rama Rao, Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as it is remote area, in order to protect his property, the boundary wall and security guard rooms were constructed and if they are demolished great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel, on instructions, would submit that petitioner constructed compound wall and security guard rooms illegally without obtaining building permission on a huge extent of land situated in urban agglomeration. When questioned by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no permission was obtained prior to construction of compound wall and security guard rooms. Prima-facie, it is seen that so far no notice or order was passed against the petitioner directing demolition. The petitioner instituted this writ petition only on the apprehension of alleged demolition.

No cause arises for the petitioner to institute the writ petition alleging demolition of the compound wall. Thus, there is no subsisting grievance to file the writ petition. The writ petition is premature.

Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 2nd November, 2016 Rds