Vice-Chairman,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Kavitha
Reddy & Ors [2003] Insc 128 (3 March 2003)
Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri & Ashok Bhan
[Arising
out of S.L.P.(C) No.1987 of 2001] SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.
Leave
is granted.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
Dissatisfied
with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of (Judicature) Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.769 of 2000 dated
December 2, 2000, the Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority is in appeal before this Court.
The
respondents filed Writ Petition No.4187 of 2000 seeking a writ of mandamus to
declare Letter No.2967/P4/H/99 dated February 18, 2000 issued by the appellant
was illegal and arbitrary, to quash the same and for a consequential direction
to the appellant to release the plan without insisting on the production of the
Urban Land Ceiling Clearance Certificate from the Special Officer, Urban Land
Ceiling. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition
following the judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition No.23100 of 1999
passed on November 19,
1999. A perusal of the
said judgment discloses that it was rendered following the judgment of the same
High Court in Writ Petition No.898 of 1999 dated August 3, 1999, wherein a similar relief was prayed for. The appellant
unsuccessfully assailed that order dated August 3, 1999 in Writ Appeal No.315 of 2000 which
was dismissed on April
19, 2000. It appears
that Special Leave Petition (C) No.9491 of 2000 seeking leave to appeal against
the judgment of April
19, 2000 was dismissed
by this Court on July
13, 2000.
It may
be relevant to mention here that the judgment in Writ Petition No.898 of 1999
was rendered by following the judgment in Writ Appeal No.968 of 1998 dated October 22, 1998. That judgment was carried in
appeal to this court, by special leave, in Civil Appeal No.7348 of 2001 -
Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. J.Sridevi & Ors. [2002 (5) SCC 37]. By
judgment rendered on April
12, 2002, the order of
the High Court, under challenge, was set aside and the case was remanded to the
competent authority to decide the matter afresh without being influenced by any
observations made in the said judgment.
It
will be relevant to mention that against the order of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in Writ Petition No.23100 of 1999 allowing the Writ Petition
on November 19, 1999, Writ Appeal No.44 of 2000 was
filed which was dismissed on February 17, 2000.
That judgment was carried in appeal to this Court, by special leave, in Civil
Appeal No.3996 of 2002 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.1342/2001) and it was
allowed on July 12,
2002 following the
judgment of this Court in J.Sridevi's case (supra). Mr.M.N.Rao, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contends that against
the judgment in the case of Lata Rani, Special Leave Petition (C) No.9491 of
2000, was dismissed on July 13, 2000 and she availed the benefit of the
judgment of the High Court; acting upon the order under challenge, the respondents
completed the construction and if the appeal is allowed and the order of the
High Court is set aside she would be put to great hardship and irreparable
loss.
It has
already been noticed that the first case which was decided by the High Court
was that of J.Sridevi in Writ Petition No.5929 of 1997 which was upheld in Writ
Appeal No.968 of 1998 by the Division Bench. It was that case which was
followed by the High Court in the case of Lata Rani (Writ Petition No.898 of
1999) as well as in the case of U.B.Properties (Writ Petition No.23100 of
1999). The judgment of the High Court in Sridevi's case (supra) has been
reversed by this Court. Consequently, the dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition against the order of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.315 of 2000
(against the judgment in Writ Petition No.898 of 1999) has to be confined to
the facts of that case. Inasmuch as the judgment of the High Court in Sridevi's
case (referred to above) has been set aside by this Court and the judgment of
the High Court in U.B.Properties case which was also set aside, were followed
by the High Court in the appellant's case, the order under challenge cannot be
sustained.
For
the aforementioned reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and the
appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Sridevi's case
(supra). We take note of the fact that the respondents have completed the
construction on the basis of the order under challenge and direct that till the
disposal of the case by the Special Officer-cum- Competent Authority the
construction made by the respondents shall not be disturbed. We also make it
clear that the said authority shall give a fresh look to the matter without
being influenced by any observations made herein and pass appropriate orders on
the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the
respondents, acting upon the order under challenge, completed the construction.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Back