Telangana High Court
M/S.Vaishnavi Constructions vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2020
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.13340 of 2020
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.5 to 7 and their subordinates in interfering and stopping the petitioner's ongoing building construction work in their open land i.e., plot bearing No.1/part, admeasuring 460 square yards (out of 641 square yards) and another plot bearing No.2/part, admeasuring 434 square yards (out of 605 square yards) total admeasuring 894 square yards or 747.38 square meters in Survey No.119/part, as per the final layout, vide permit No.13/MP2/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 05.09.2018 in file No.3592/MP2/P1g/HMDA/2008 issued by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Hyderabad, situated at Puppalaguda Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is being carried out as per the Technical Approval, vide No.031631/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/ 10122019, dated 18.06.2020 for construction of stilt plus five floors issued by the 3rd respondent and building construction permission, vide Proceeding No.MC/MNK/TP/06/2020202, dated 10.08.2020 issued by the 4th respondent and giving police protection and aid to the respondent Nos.8 to 10 for taking possession by trespassing into the petitioner's property without any authority and jurisdiction, as being highly illegal, arbitrary, bad and violation of Articles of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and their subordinates not to interfere with 2 the ongoing construction work being carried on by the petitioner in their open plots in any manner.
2. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5, Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent-HMDA, Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent-Manikonda Municipal Council and Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10.
3. With the consent of all the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present writ petition is taken up for hearing today i.e., 21.08.2020 through Video Conferencing and is being disposed of. Since the respondent Nos.6 & 7 are arrayed as party respondents by name and interfering in the civil dispute by exercising powers being officers of the 5th respondent authority, and as this Court is disposing of the writ petition itself based on the written instructions of the said authority, it is felt that issue of notice is not necessary to the respondent Nos.6 & 7 for the purpose of disposal of present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the writ averments would submit that the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring 894 square yards situated at Puppalaguda Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal and after obtaining plot layout sanction from the 3rd respondent authority had also obtained permission from the 4th respondent authority for 3 construction of apartment complex and started the work, when the respondent Nos.8 to 10 are seeking to interfere with the support of respondent Nos.6 & 7, who are showing personal interest by their interference in the matter, directing the petitioner not to make any construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner had approached the competent civil court and obtained an injunction order on 20.08.2020 by filing civil suit bearing OS No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail the written instructions dated 21.08.2020 under the signature of 5th respondent authority/ Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is stated that the 8th respondent in the present writ petition has approached the 5th respondent authority and lodged a complaint against Sri Mohammed Mohsin Khan, Sri Bhaskar Reddy, Sri Bade Subba Reddy and others stating that while the complainant and respondent Nos.9 &10 have purchased various plots bearing Nos.300, 301, 303 and 318, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.9157 of 1994, dated 17.11.1994 and document No.956 of 1996, dated 06.04.1996, while the 10th respondent also purchased two plot Nos.320 and 321, vide registered document No.9158 of 1994 and one Sri Ahmed Abdul Ali purchased two plots bearing Nos.302 and 319, vide registered document No.4941, dated 29.03.1995 in the land situated in Survey Nos.87 and 119 of Puppalaguda Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal from its AGPA holder, Sri Kareem in the approved layout granted by HUDA authorities, vide 4 proceedings No.10132/MP2/HUDA/1990 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.17.36 guntas, the persons named in the complaint have trespassed into their property and requested the 5th respondent authority to register a case and take necessary action.
6. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is stated that on receiving the above said complaint of 8th respondent in the present writ petition, the 5th respondent authority registered two cases, vide Crime Nos.636 and 661 of 2020 on the file of 5th respondent police station against the people named in the complaint and took up investigation in the matter.
7. By the said written instructions, it is stated that while the 5th respondent authority was investigating into the above crimes registered, on 16.08.2020 one of the accused in the above crimes by name Sri Bade Subba Reddy lodged a counter complaint in respect of the same subject matter, being enquired/investigated into by the 5th respondent authority. It is also stated that as the contents of the complaint disclosed to be in relation to the matter under investigation by the 5th respondent based on the above two crimes registered, the complainant/Bade Subba Reddy was informed about the case details and suggested to take remedies in the competent civil Court or any other relevant institutions. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is also stated that the 5th respondent authority except investigating into the above two cases registered are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10 and the allegations to the contrary are denied as false. 5
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 to 10 would submit that as the respondent authorities have registered crimes based on complaints made by the Respondent No.8, for commission of offences liable for action under the provisions of Indian Penal code, the authorities can be directed to proceed with the investigation thereinto, while the parties seek to resolve the civil disputes before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.
9. Having regard to the submissions made as above, Placing on record the submissions made on behalf of the 5th respondent authority, in particular the statement that the 5th respondent authority that except registering the above said two crimes based on the complaint made by 8th respondent in the present writ petition and investigating there into, the respondent police authorities are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, no further orders need be passed in the matter.
10. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 21.08.2020 Isn