Telangana High Court
M/S. Ramesh Cement Hallow Bricks ... vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2023
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.25843 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue the direction or directions more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 and 3 Respondents 2 tali 6 in not registering the excess land of 950 sq meters by accepting the sale consideration of Rs 8 01 038/- as per the letter NoGEN/IE/CTL/2001 dt 30 03 2001 in respect of property adm 950 sq meters forming part and parcel of Plot No 53 IDA Chityal Nalgonda District as being illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to register the excess land of 950 sq meters by accepting the sale consideration of Rs 8 01 038/- as per the letter NoGEN/IE/CTL/2001 dt 30 03 2001 in respect of property adm 950 sq meters forming part and parcel of Plot No 53 IDA Chityal Nalgonda District in the interest of justice and pass..."
2. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made an application on 07.02.2001 for the allotment of plot Nos.53,57 & 58, admeasuring 4630.23 Sq. mts along with an open land which is facing to the National Highway situated at Industrial Estate, Chityal, Nalgonda District. He submits that by application dated 30.03.2001, on the recommendation of the Assistant Zonal Manager, petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.74,200/- towards EMD and Rs. 500/- towards process fee for allotment of the above said three plots including the open area which is known as "common usage" area total admeasuring 9891 Sq. Mts and the petitioner by way of a deed has deposited the said amount. Thereafter, the residential Plot No.53, admeasuring 2381.65/1991.35 Sq. mts was allotted as per the proceedings dated 13.09.2021 and 21.02.2022, which is "anti vastu" and also a sale deed was executed in the year 2007 in favour of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner by obtaining permission has made constructions on the 2 allotted plot No.53 which is not in accordance with vastu and the petitioner was constrained to make some constructions over the "Triangular Bit"
admeasuring 950 Sq mts, which is not registered in his favour and after the completion of the said construction, the respondents visited the premises and made assessment of entire property including "Triangular Bit" and directed him to pay the property tax and accordingly he has been paying the property tax. He submits that the respondents have collected the amount of Rs.74,200/ including the open area but the respondents failed to allot the same in favour of the petitioner, which made the petitioner to come before this court. Petitioner also refers to a representation dated 03.06.2022.
3. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that even as per the affidavit and as per the case of the petitioner also it is an open space and the said open space is left for the purpose of greenery and that cannot be allotted in favour of any person. He submits that the petitioner without any right has encroached the same and made constructions. He submits that when they have issued a notice to the petitioner, petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has no legal right for seeking such allotment of an open space. However, he does not dispute the fact that the EMD that was paid by the petitioner was not refunded to him.
4. The relief that is sought by the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for allotment. On the face of it, petitioner is not entitled for such allotment and no constructions can be permitted in 3 the open space. Further, the respondents having received the EMD amount ought to have returned the same to the petitioner.
5. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to return the EMD amount paid by the petitioner for the open space and it is needless to mention that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of the said open space. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 3rd January, 2023 myk