Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)Documents citing
Guntuka Raja Ram, S/O Rajalingam, Age: ... vs The State Of Telangana Represented By ... on 14 March, 2017
M/S Dharani Kartikeya Builders vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 December, 2020
Coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the propositions of law are not really in
doubt. But a close reading of the judgment reported in
Guntuka Raja Ram v State of Telangana and
others2would show that Commissioner should only examine
prima facie title. If there is any doubt about the title and
there is a serious dispute, the Commissioner may take a
decision after obtaining a legal opinion to grant or reject the
permission. If there is a serious triable issue between the
parties the Commissioner can relegate the parties to approach
the civil Courts for resolving dispute. Therefore, in the
opinion of this Court what the learned single Judge held in
this case is that if there is a serious dispute between two
parties, one of whom applied for a plan and another objected
2
2017 (4) ALT 112
11
to it, the Commissioner can relegate the parties to the civil
Court to get a proper finding on the title.
Indukuri Gopala Krishnam Raju, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 August, 2018
In the considered opinion of this Court the principle laid
down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the
case on hand. In fact, after duly taking into consideration all the
aspects, this Court, on 05.06.2018, in I.A.No.01 of 2018 in
A.S.Nos.99 and 164 of 2018, directed both parties to maintain
status quo and, since there is an order of status quo, granted by
this Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage,
it would not be appropriate to direct the Municipal
Commissioner to take action on the representation, said to have
been made by the petitioner herein, and the same would
tantamount to asking the respondent-GHMC to look into the
title to the property which, according to the judgment referred
to supra, is also impermissible. This Court does not find any
merit in the present Writ Petition.
Sri Chinthi Reddy Devender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 18 December, 2020
That,
as on the date of execution of the GPA., no specific allotment of
land in any survey number had taken place under the decree and
therefore the alleged owners also did not have any authority to
execute the GPA. That, GHMC ought not to have granted building
permission on the basis of this sham document. That, instead of
canceling the building permission, the authorities have kept quiet.
The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision reported in
GUNTUKA RAJA RAM v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS1.
Tummala Narsaiah vs State Of Telangana on 18 December, 2020
That,
as on the date of execution of the GPA., no specific allotment of
land in any survey number had taken place under the decree and
therefore the alleged owners also did not have any authority to
execute the GPA. That, GHMC ought not to have granted building
permission on the basis of this sham document. That, instead of
canceling the building permission, the authorities have kept quiet.
The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision reported in
GUNTUKA RAJA RAM v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS1.
M Padma vs State Of Telangana on 10 February, 2021
1 2006 (3) ALD 337
6
In Guntuka Raja Ram v. State of Telangana2, this Court
held as under:
Revoori Jenna Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 1 March, 2021
The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court, in number of cases, have categorically held that where
disputed questions of title are raised, the Commissioner cannot
traverse into the said area and decide the title dispute. Before
granting any building permission, the subject satisfaction of the
municipal authority is as to whether the applicant is having any
prima facie title or not in respect of the property in question and
whether the plans are in accordance with the building bye-laws,
rules etc. When two parties are claiming rival title through
registered sale deeds, the question as to who is having better title
over the other, cannot be gone into by the municipal authorities.
While dealing with the issue of powers of the municipal authorities,
this Court in Guntuka Raja Ram v. State of Telangana1, held
as under:
S.H.Kishan Lal And 4 Others vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 8 July, 2021
In Guntuka Raja Ram v. State of Telangana4, this Court
held as under:
Akarapu Badrinath vs The State Of Telangana on 30 December, 2024
vii) Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contended that
there is no misrepresentation/suppression of fact by the Vendor of the
petitioner while submitting application dated 30.10.2021 and by the
petitioner while obtaining building permit order dated 03.03.2022. In
fact, there are no adverse orders against the petitioner and his vendors in
the suits filed by them i.e., O.S. No.1034 of 2021 and O.S. No.2112 of
2022. Thus, it is not a suppression/misrepresentation of fact. If there is
any suit or legal proceeding pending against the petitioner or his vendor,
or any adverse orders against them, they have to disclose the said fact in
the application submitted by them under TS-bPASS seeking permission
for construction. In the present case, there is no adverse order against
them and, therefore, there is no need of disclosing the said suits and,
therefore, there is no suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the
petitioner and his vendor. He has placed reliance on the judgments in K.
10
KL,J
W.P. No.10419 of 2023
Pavan Raj v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 1 and
Guntuka Raja Ram v. State of Telangana 2.
Nandigam Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Ap on 4 November, 2020
5. Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 states that the prayer made in the writ
petition cannot be granted. According to him, there are disputed facts,
which cannot be gone into neither by the official respondents nor by this
Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
He relies upon the decision of this Court in Guntuka Raja Ram vs.
State of Telangana1 to support his contentions.