Telangana HC refuses relief to woman in illegal construction case
HYDERABAD: Justice T Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Cheguri Anitha Andalu seeking relief against action on an unauthorised construction at BS Maktha, Begumpet.
The court found that the petitioner's construction violated sanctioned building permissions and building rules, rendering her ineligible for relief under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955.
The petitioner had approached the court requesting a stay on demolition or other action by GHMC authorities.
However, the court noted that the petitioner and her son merged two plots and constructed a single building with Ground + 4 upper floors, far in excess of the permitted construction.
The revised plan submitted by them on February 23, 2023, was never approved, yet they went ahead and completed the construction.
The GHMC, through its Standing Counsel, informed the court that the petitioner and her son had received permissions with strict stipulations regarding floor area and setbacks, which were not followed. Instead of building as per the sanctioned plan, they constructed additional floors and merged the properties into a single unauthorised structure.
Dismissing the writ petition as 'misconceived and devoid of merit,' the court observed that the regularisation application under Section 455A did not mention the unauthorized fifth floor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC fines litigant and lawyer Rs 50,000 for misusing judicial process
NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant and her lawyer after finding that a writ petition concerning alleged unauthorised construction had been filed without the petitioner's signature, a glaring irregularity the Court viewed as a serious abuse of its process. The matter came to light during a hearing before Justice Mini Pushkarna, after counsel for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) pointed out that the petition bore only the advocate's signature, not that of the named petitioner. The Delhi Development Authority's counsel further submitted that the mobile number and email address listed in the original complaint filed before the Special Task Force were also those of the advocate, not the Bench observed that the identical contact details in the complaint and petition suggested the entire legal action had been initiated by the advocate alone. 'On account of the glaring facts presented before this Court... this Court has taken a very serious view of the matter, where complaints against unauthorised construction are being filed by advocates themselves, and writ petition is being filed without the signatures of the purported litigant,' the Court remarked in its order dated May 30. Justice Pushkarna strongly criticised what appeared to be an emerging practice of lawyers filing complaints and petitions in their own names but presenting them as though they were acting on behalf of third parties, without proper authorisation or even the basic procedural safeguard of obtaining the client's signature. The MCD also informed the Court that appropriate action was already underway regarding the allegedly unauthorised construction in question. In a sharp rebuke, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed that Rs 50,000 in costs be paid jointly by both the petitioner and her counsel to the Delhi HC Advocates Welfare Trust.
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC refuses relief to woman in illegal construction case
HYDERABAD: Justice T Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Cheguri Anitha Andalu seeking relief against action on an unauthorised construction at BS Maktha, Begumpet. The court found that the petitioner's construction violated sanctioned building permissions and building rules, rendering her ineligible for relief under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955. The petitioner had approached the court requesting a stay on demolition or other action by GHMC authorities. However, the court noted that the petitioner and her son merged two plots and constructed a single building with Ground + 4 upper floors, far in excess of the permitted construction. The revised plan submitted by them on February 23, 2023, was never approved, yet they went ahead and completed the construction. The GHMC, through its Standing Counsel, informed the court that the petitioner and her son had received permissions with strict stipulations regarding floor area and setbacks, which were not followed. Instead of building as per the sanctioned plan, they constructed additional floors and merged the properties into a single unauthorised structure. Dismissing the writ petition as 'misconceived and devoid of merit,' the court observed that the regularisation application under Section 455A did not mention the unauthorized fifth floor.
The Hindu
20 hours ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court declines to quash case against KIADB officer caught while returning alleged bribe amount
The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash a corruption case against an officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), who was caught in a 'reverse-trap' case when he was returning the alleged bribe money of ₹3 lakh in cash to the complainant. 'In a reverse trap scenario, the public servant allegedly returns money previously received as illegal gratification. These facts, when projected before the court, require a complex evidentiary matrix. The issues that arise in cases of reverse trap are distinct from a traditional trap. The central twist in a reverse trap would be as to why the public servant returns the money,' the court said. The court said the case requires investigation to demonstrate the innocence of a public servant, as the matter is still at the stage of investigation, to clear obfuscation about whether the bribe was ever demanded or accepted in the first place. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by A.B. Vijaya Kumar, who was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)-2 at KIADB, Bengaluru, during September 2022. The complainant, B.S. Arun, had alleged that he had sought a no-objection certificate from the KIADB for construction related to a temple at Laggere in Bengaluru. Though the petitioner-SLAO had demanded ₹4 lakh bribe and received ₹2.5 lakh through another person from his office for issuing the NoC, the document was not issued despite repeated requests. Hence, Mr. Arun had lodged a complaint with the Special Deputy Commissioner of the KIADB alleging that the petitioner was not issuing the NoC despite receiving the bribe. Following this complaint, the petitioner issued the NoC and is said to have offered to return the bribe amount as a donation to the temple with a request to Mr. Arun to withdraw the complaint made to the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Lokayukta police, acting on the complaint by Mr. Aurn, caught the petitioner red-handed when he was returning ₹3 lakh to the complainant. But it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint could not have been registered as there was no material for demand and acceptance besides there being mismatch of ₹50,000 between the alleged bribe amount received and returned. However, the court declined to interfere in the investigation, stating that the probe is essential to find out whether the bribe was in fact demanded and accepted as per the law.
