Telangana HC Approves Stilt-Plus-Five-Floor Building in Warangal

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court quashed an order of the Warangal municipality refusing permission to a landowner to construct a stilt-plus-five-floor building, and allowed a writ petition filed by Pingle Hema. The petitioner said she had a 980-square yard plot. Earlier, building permission in her favour was cancelled on the ground that the property was involved in a civil litigation. 

The petitioner successfully contended before the High Court that the dispute was only with regard to 65 sq. yds and she was entitled to an independent consideration given a total extent she owned, without reference to the 65 sq. yds. In a fresh round the civic authorities rejected her application on yet another ground. Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar said that the authorities could not have gone beyond the first showcause notice and that the rejection in the second round was illegal. 

Justice Vinod Kumar faulted the civic authorities for rejecting the petitioner’s application on unstated fresh grounds. This would amount rejecting the petitioner’s case without affording a proper opportunity.

Justice



T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court quashed an order of the Warangal municipality refusing permission to a landowner to construct a stilt-plus-five-floor building, and allowed a writ petition filed by Pingle Hema. The petitioner said she had a 980-square yard plot. 

Earlier, building permission in her favour was cancelled on the ground that the property was involved in a civil litigation. The petitioner successfully contended before the High Court that the dispute was only with regard to 65 sq. yds and she was entitled to an independent consideration given a total extent she owned, without reference to the 65 sq. yds. In a fresh round the civic authorities rejected her application on yet another ground. 

Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar said that the authorities could not have gone beyond the first showcause notice and that the rejection in the second round was illegal. Justice Vinod Kumar faulted the civic authorities for rejecting the petitioner’s application on unstated fresh grounds. This would amount rejecting the petitioner’s case without affording a proper opportunity.