C VENKAT RAMI REDDY LATE C BAL REDDY Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BEGUMPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Malla Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna and Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) Sri Malla Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the respective stands taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 2, 3 to 5 and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case without putting the writ petitioners on notice and without giving any opportunity and without following the procedure granting permission to respondents 3 to 5 for construction of building in the subject matter of the Writ Petition being contrary to the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 and also in violation of principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent had explained the facts and circumstances and would maintain that the 1st respondent is not aware of the pendency of O.S.No.453/2002 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy and the said authority is not a party in the said civil suit and the pendency of the said proceedings was not brought to the notice of the authority and the authority was not aware of the dispute pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. The learned Counsel also would further explain that the 1st respondent would be bound by the orders which may be made by this Court in the writ petition.