Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

P Prem Kumar vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

High Court Of Telangana|02 September, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21690 of 2006 Date: September 02, 2014 Between:
P. Prem Kumar.
… Petitioner And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Secunderabad.
… Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21690 of 2006 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent in seeking to interfere with the private property of the petitioner in Survey Nos.67, 68, 69, 75, 76 and 78 totally admeasuring about Ac.80.00 of land situated in Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without acquiring the same.
3. Today, a counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent stating as follows:
“In reply to the averments made in paras 11 to 13 of the affidavit it is submitted that the allegation that the respondents have trespassed over the lands of the petitioner and started digging of the area is vague, not correct and denied. The officials of the answering respondent never tried to encroach or enter into the alleged land of the petitioner. If at all the answering respondent is intending to construct a sewerage tank etc., in the land allegedly owned by the petitioner, it will construct the same only by following due process of law. However it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to convert the same into any other use which is not permitted by law. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition only on an apprehension and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The answering respondent reserves the liberty to file an additional counter affidavit if necessary.”
4. In view of the above averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
5. The writ petition is accordingly closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 02, 2014 BSB
6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21690 of 2006 Date: September 02, 2014 BSB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P Prem Kumar vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
02 September, 2014
Judges
  • A Ramalingeswara Rao