Telangana High Court
Md. Mahboob All vs State Of Telangana on 1 September, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.34254 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inactions of 3rd respondent and not executing and registering the rectification deed to sale deed No.2124/2010 dated 28.07.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Art.14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to execute and get the registration of the rectification deed dated 27.11.2021 to the sale deed No.2124/2010 dated 28.07.2010 registered in the office of S.R.O, Medak and ...."
2. Mr. C. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property and the sale deed was executed in his favour vide No.2124 of 2010 on 28.07.2010 in the office of SRO, Medak and physical possession was delivered to the petitioner. Then the petitioner has made a representation on 27.11.2021 for the rectification of survey number in the said sale deed enclosing the draft deed of rectification stating that he is ready to bear the expenses of the said registration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not complete the construction of the compound wall as he came to know that there is an error in the layout plan. It is stated that the respondent No.3 took a long time to revise the error in the layout plan and a final revised layout plan was made and got approved from the respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Town Planning vide layout dated 31.08.2020. According to the revised layout, the 2 Sy.No.352 was removed from the layout since the said survey number pertains to a NALA from Rayanpally Reservoir, but the sale deed shows that the Sy.No.352 which has now been removed in the revised layout. It is stated that the error in the sale deed has to be corrected through a rectification deed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of representation of the petitioner, no action has been initiated by the respondents.
5. Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent municipality submits that with regard to the correction of this layout, there is a Committee namely IDSMT where the respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Town Planning who is the Chairman of the concerned municipality and Public Health Officer, both are members of the said committee. He submits that petitioner instead of submitting representation to them has submitted representation to the respondent municipality.
6. The admitted facts are that the layout was revised in the year 2020. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2010 and there is some rectification sought to be made in the said sale deed. The petitioner has made a representation to the respondent corporation.
7. According to the learned standing counsel, IDSMT Committee is the competent authority to decide the same.
3
8. Hence, the respondent corporation shall forward the representation of the petitioner to the IDSMT Committee and the said Committee shall pass appropriate orders within a period of (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 1st September, 2022 gvl