V. Raja Kumari v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

V. Raja Kumari, W/o. T. Vijayender Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat No.303, Emerald Apartments, Amrutha Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082.

.. Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner claims to have purchased Plot No.418 (Northern Part) admeasuring 526.66 square yards in Survey Nos.175 to 179, situated at Prabhupada Township of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, by registered Sale Deed, dated 15.12.2014. According to the petitioner, the developers by name M/s. Shailendra Developers & Investments Ltd., applied to the Government for regularization of layout land vide Proceedings No.LRS/1789/CR-11/West Zone/GHMC/2012, dated 23.11.2012, and thereafter, the petitioner purchased the same.

2. The petitioner apprehended that certain persons are complaining against such regularization and have submitted complaints. This writ petition is filed praying to grant direction to the respondent authorities to give an opportunity to the petitioner, by following the due procedure of law, before considering the representations made by third parties against the LRS proceedings, dated 23.11.2012.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration on 21.09.2015, learned Standing Counsel produced the proceedings of Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, Serilingampally, singed on 09.03.2015, and contended that by the said proceedings, the LRS orders granted in favour of M/s. Shailendra Developers & Investments Ltd., was cancelled. A copy of the same was also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, the matter was adjourned.

4. It appears that the said proceedings were received by the concerned person on 12.03.2015, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 29.04.2015. Thus, even before the writ petition is filed, the proceedings are already issued. Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in law, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of the Zonal Commissioner signed on 09.03.2015. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 30th October, 2015 KL

Date: 30th October, 2015

KL