Telangana High Court
Sri. Dasari Sudhakar And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 2 June, 2020
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.7271 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents, in particular 5th respondent in interfering and demolishing the pillars, drainage system and excavation of black top roads in relation to the layout plots consisting of Ac.4.00 guntas situated in Survey Nos.572 & 573 of Aliabad Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, without following due procedure contemplated under the provisions of HMDA Act, 2008 and the provisions of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, despite representations of the petitioners dated 28.02.2020, as arbitrary, illegal and colorable exercise and misuse of powers under the provisions of said Acts and also violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The above case is taken up for hearing today through video conferencing.
3. Heard Ms. Sunita Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.
4. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are the purchasers of two plots bearing Nos.17 and 36 admeasuring 170.0 and 155.5 square yards respectively under registered sale deed document Nos. 10110 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 and 318 of 2020 dated 09.01.2020, from a developer, who has developed a layout in the land admeasuring four acres in Survey Nos.572 and 573 situated at Aliabad Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District,. From the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, it would be evident that 2 what has been sold to each of the petitioners, is only plot of land in the above said survey numbers.
5. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsels for Gram Panchayat and HMDA, that the respondent authorities are not taking any action with regard to the plot of land that has been sold to the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat would further submit that the developer / vendors of the petitioners have converted this land admeasuring four acres into a layout without obtaining any sanction and approval from the authorities concerned and are laying BT roads, pipe lines and electrical polls, for which the 5th respondent has issued a notice dated 18.11.2019 calling upon the developer to stop further activity therein, which was followed up by another notice dated 30.11.2019. The developer / vendor of the petitioners, has submitted his reply to the above notices on 09.12.2019, wherein it has been stated that they are only carrying on repairs and on receipt of the notices, they have stopped all activity. Further, by the said reply, the developer has also stated that if any constructions have to be undertaken therein, the same would be done only after obtaining 'LRS' and as per HMDA guidelines.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat would also submit that, the developer of the layout, wherein the plots of the present petitioners are situate, after filing the reply to the notices, has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition W.P. No. 2599 of 2020 and this Hon'ble Court by order dated 10.02.2020 disposed of the above writ petition directing the respondents to consider the reply dated 09.12.2020 and pass orders thereon. In compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the respondent authorities have passed order on the representation of the developer on 15.02.2020, whereunder the contentions of the developer with regard to the erstwhile owner of the land obtaining permission for development of layout in the above land 3 was rejected. However, in view of the undertaking given under the reply dated 09.12.2019 as not to make any developments/constructions without obtaining regularization proceedings from HMDA, the authorities directed the developer not to take up any development / constructions and if it is found that any such activity is undertaken, the authorities will take penal action including demolition without any prior notice. As the said undertaking given by the developer is staring on his face, the developer to circumvent the same, has resorted to the present method of approaching this court through the petitioners and thus the petitioners are only front ending the cause of the developer.
7. Having given due consideration to the submissions made on either side, it is to be seen that the petitioners are merely purchasers of plots of small extents in lay out of Ac. 4.00 Gts developed by the petitioners vendor and in pursuance of the registered sale deed, petitioners have been put in possession of the vacant land sold to them. The concern of the petitioners appears to be with regard to the developer not being able to take up such works on account of the undertaking given to the authorities concerned, though projected as being the beneficiaries, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, it is not the case of the petitioners that they are taking up any development works like laying of BT road, pillars and pipeline in their respective plot of land purchased by incurring cost by themselves. Further, a cursory look at the relief sought for in the present writ petition, with that of the relief sought for in the writ petition filed by the developer, would indicate that the petitioners are only fighting proxy litigation at the behest of the developer, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. The other important aspect which this court cannot loose sight, is of the application of principle of "Let the Buyer Beware". The petitioners having purchased the plots in an un approved lay out cannot be permitted to plead for continuance of development activities in the lay-out, on the 4 ground of beneficiaries, as any such indulgence shown would amount to putting a stamp of approval for acting in contravention of law.
8. Thus, considered from any angle, the grievance to the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot be considered as valid or genuine and the respondent authorities cannot be interdicted from taking any action in the event the developer /vendor of the petitioners is making any development / construction in contravention of the undertaking as noted in the proceeding dated 15.02.2020.
9. In normal circumstances, having come to the above conclusion, this court would be required to dismiss the writ petition. However, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have made representations dated 28.02.2020 to the 2nd respondent authority and a direction may be issued to the said authority to consider the representations.
10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for HMDA, submits that the said representations filed by the petitioners would be considered and disposed of by the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks.
11. In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the 2nd respondent authority is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 28.02.2020, stated to have been filed by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Subject to the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Date: 02.06.2020 Isn 5 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.7271 of 2020 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. DATE OFFICE ORDER No NOTE 02.06.2020 TVK,J:
The writ petition is disposed of.
(vide separate order).
(B/o.) Isn