Telangana High Court
M/S S.R Enterprises, Builders, ... vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 23 March, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITIONS No. 31746 AND 35819 of 2021 AND 13948 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No. 31746 of 2021 This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents particularly Respondents 2 to 7 in not considering the notice dated 08.11.2021 whereby the petitioners have asked to take action against Respondents 12 and 13 for threatening to carry out illegal construction work of compound wall over their agricultural land in Survey No. 2916 admeasuring Ac.1.02 guntas, in Survey No. 2917 admeasuring Ac.1.01 guntas, in Survey No. 2959 admeasuring Acs.2.38 guntas, in Survey No. 2960 admeasuring Acs.3.34 guntas and in Survey No. 2954 admeasuring Acs.1.31 guntas, total Acs.10.26 guntas situated at Arsapally Shivar near Railway Line, Nizamabad without prior permission for construction of compound wall as highly illegal, arbitrary.
W.P.No. 35819 of 2021:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents particularly Respondents 2 to 5 in not receiving the petitioners' complaint and not providing police aid against Respondents 6 and 7 for threatening to illegally trespass in their agricultural land in Survey No. 2916 admeasuring Acs.1.02 guntas, in Survey No. 2917 admeasuring Ac.1.01 guntas, in Survey No. 2959 admeasuring Acs.2.38 guntas, in Survey No. 2960 admeasuring Acs.3.34 guntas and in Survey No. 2954 admeasuring Acs.1.31 guntas, total Acs.10.26 guntas situated at 2 Arsapally Shivar near Railway Line, Nizamabad in the guise of constructing compound wall as highly illegal and arbitrary. W.P.No. 13948 of 2022
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent against the illegal construction of compound wall, pursuant to the petitioner's reply dated 11.02.2022, for the land situated at Survey No. 2916 admeasuring Ac.01.02 guntas, in Survey No. 2917 admeasuring Ac.01.01 guntas, in Survey No. 2959 admeasuring Acs.02.38 guntas, in Survey No. 2960 admeasuring Acs.3.34 guntas and in Survey No. 2954 admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas, total admeasuring Acs.10.26 guntas situated at Arsapally Shivar, near Railway Line, Nizamabad as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Sri Mohd. Abdul Muqtadir, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13948 of 2022 submits that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent was unsuccessful and even Second Appeal No. 833 of 2021 preferred by him was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.03.2007. It is submitted that the 4th respondent illegally got mutated his name in the revenue records in respect of the above said lands and the same was challenged by the petitioner's vendor. It is stated that the said mutation proceedings were set aside by order dated 16.11.2015 and the same is questioned by the 4th respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 3159 of 2016 which is pending adjudication. It is also stated that the petitioner's firm had submitted an Application for mutation of its name in the revenue records and when the official respondents kept the same pending, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18329 of 2014, 3 wherein this Court vide order dated 30.07.2014 directed the petitioner to file an Application under Section 6-A and also directed the Revenue Department to consider the Application on merits. It is stated that the Tahsildar, Nizamabad informed that as the Writ Petition is pending, he cannot mutate the petitioner's name in the revenue records. It is also stated that against the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 194 of 2012 which was dismissed with an observation that neither parties have proved their possession, against which, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and the same is pending. Learned counsel submits that as the 4th respondent is making hectic efforts to interfere with the petitioner's land, the firm was constrained to file two Writ Petitions ie. Writ Petitions No. 31746 and 35819 of 2021 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to grant any construction or lay out permission and to grant police protection and the said Writ Petitions are pending adjudication. In spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner, when the respondents failed to react, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13948 of 2022.
3. On instructions, Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Nizamabad Municipal Corporation submits that even prior to the representation made by the petitioner, the Enforcement Team conducted site inspection on the complaint filed by Sri B. Sudhakar dated 06.12.2021 and panchanama report was submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 30.12.2021, wherein it was informed to the office that an unauthorized lay out is existing and the 4th respondent is constructing wall to protect agricultural land from 4 animals and A.S. No. 112 of 2020 is pending. It is stated that the 4th respondent submitted his representation informing that the said lands are agricultural lands which are not covered for non- agricultural purpose by the revenue department. It is stated that further, for the sake of protection and fixing boundaries from antisocial elements, who are creating litigation by means of selling unauthorized plots they are fencing the land and submitted ownership documents along with copy of the judgment in O.S.No. 2 of 2007 to the Enforcement Team and to the municipal office. He submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and as per the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2021, Sl. No. 1 submitted plan showing the plots made by the petitioner over the schedule of property. It is stated that the Corporation officials verified the records of the office and it is confirmed that the petitioner has not obtained any statutory approval of layout from the competent authority. He submits that the site under reference no layout permission is issued to the 4th respondent as alleged by the petitioner and only construction of pre-fabricated temporary wall work is carried out to the said lands which are agricultural in nature and they are also proposing for demolition of unauthorized layout in the said lands.
4. The petitioner has come up before this Court giving several reasons and stating that the respondents are constructing a compound wall. Whereas the instructions of the learned Standing Counsel are that in fact the petitioner has submitted the plan showing the plots made by them over the schedule property and as per the record, the petitioner has not obtained any statutory approval of layout from the competent authority and 5 office has also proposed for demolition of the unauthorized lay out which is falling in the said survey numbers. The petitioner has come up before this Court with unclean hands and with suppression of material facts. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court.
5. Writ Petition No. 13948 of 2022 is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. WRIT PETITION Nos. 31746 & 35819 of 2022
6. Heard Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 31746 and 35819 of 2021.
7. In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 13948 of 2022, both these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs
8. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 23rd March 2022 ksld