Telangana High Court
Thota Nageswar Thota Nageswar Rao vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal ... on 29 November, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 42843 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings in Lr.No. 30999/TPS/Cir-28/GHMC/2022, dt. 22.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of the power, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of GHMC Act and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and also direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house property including compound wall situated at H.No. 30-239/4/8/12, Plot No. 15, Old Suffilguda, Malkajgiri, Circle No. 28, Secunderabad, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of Plot No. 15 in an extent of 160.44 square yards situated in Survey No. 441, Dwarakamai Colony, Old Suffilguda, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad which was purchased by him from his rightful owner for a consideration on 16.04.2017. The petitioner had constructed a watchman room with a compound wall long ago and the same was assessed by the GHMC and house number was allotted and he has been paying taxes to the 2 GHMC. Petitioner also obtained electricity connection and paying necessary charges to TSPDCL. Learned counsel submits that the 4th respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2022 with a request to receive the sale deed pertaining to the schedule land and the same is pending consideration before this Court. In that, I.A.No. 2 of 2022 was filed to implead himself. He submits that thereafter the unofficial respondent filed Writ Petition No. 10366 of 2022 through his alleged vendor and the same was disposed of by order dated 02.03.2022. Petitioner filed leave petition and recall petition to recall the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 10366 of 2022 and the same is pending consideration. Thereafter, the 4th respondent also filed O.S.No. 304 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri. According to the petitioner, there is no injunction. The 4th respondent has also filed Writ Petition No. 17731 of 2022 and this Court disposed of the same at the admission stage directing TSSPDCL to take appropriate action for disconnection of power supply to the schedule property subject to outcome of the orders that may be passed in I.A.No. 385 of 2022 in O.S.No. 304 of 2022 vide order dated 30.09.2022. He submits that as the 4th respondent has failed in his attempts to dispossess the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No. 30999 of 2022 before this 3 Court finding fault with the GHMC in not acting on the representations dated 14.03.2022 and 22.07.2022 and the same was disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the petitioner by directing the GHMC to take appropriate action in accordance with law, by order dated 29.07.2022.
Learned counsel submits that Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short, 'the Act') which was inserted with effect from 27.01.2017 empowers GHMC to demolish the unauthorised construction, if the construction is carried on contrary to Section 432. The petitioner's construction that too a small room for watchman, surrounded by a compound wall was constructed long ago in the year 2007-08 to prevent illegal encroachers and to safeguard the property. GHMC was pleased to assess the property tax and has been receiving the taxes without any objection. Learned counsel submits that the complaint is nothing but to settle the civil disputes through GHMC. According to the learned counsel, Section 452 of the Act only applies to ongoing constructions. It is submitted that even if the respondents are not satisfied with his explanation, they have to give some breathing time and in the instant case, 24 hours' time was granted. He submits that a person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 452(3) of the Act can prefer an Appeal to the Tribunal appointed under 4 Section 462A and time for filing Appeal is fixed as 15 days as per Section 452(5) of the Act. Hence, the order impugned is illegal for granting 24 hours' time. Learned counsel submits that when petitioner received a show cause notice on 01.09.2022 to submit explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the order, though this Court has directed to act in accordance with law, the respondents have pre-judged the issue. It is submitted that explanation was submitted on 06.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 about the intention of the 4th respondent, in spite of the same, the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to pull down the compound wall and the room constructed long ago. He submits that the 3rd respondent is exercising his power in a colourable manner at the instance of the 4th respondent. He submits that the impugned order has to be set aside.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy submits that after receiving the representation of the unofficial respondent that petitioner had made construction of a compound wall without any permission, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 30999 of 2022 and this Court observed that as far as forged documents are concerned, respondent municipal corporation cannot decide and if the constructions are made without 5 obtaining permission, the respondent officials are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of six weeks and the respondents are also directed to issue notice. It is submitted that accordingly, GHMC has issued notices to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a reply and thereafter, the respondents have also conduced inspection. It is submitted that after hearing both the parties, they came to the conclusion that there is a civil dispute between the parties and hence, directed them to approach the competent Court for settling their disputes. As far as unauthorised construction of compound wall and room made by the petitioner is concerned, is directed to be pulled down as there is no permission. He submits that there is no illegality with the order.
5. When this matter came up on 25.11.2022, the petitioner has made a submission with regard to 24 hours' notice. The impugned order is passed on 22.11.2022 and the Writ Petition is filed on 25.11.2022. This Court has directed the Registry to list this case on 28.11.2022 so that the petitioner will get time of seven days. The whole purpose of granting time is to avail legal remedy. The petitioner has already availed the legal remedy and approached this Court. The petitioner has made several submissions about the disputes between the 6 parties and how the 4th respondent has filed the complaint, but he has failed to give any response to one aspect i.e. whether the petitioner has permission to construct, for that repeatedly, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it was made long back and it was constructed long back and it is a compound wall and watchman room. Whatever the nature of construction, whether it is temporary or permanent, whether it is small or big, every construction requires permission from the local authorities. Admittedly, even as per writ affidavit and reply filed by the petitioner, there is no permission in favour of the petitioner. In that scenario, the official respondents have every right and authority to demolish the construction which is unauthorised and there cannot be any exception to the same.
7. In view of the same, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner and also finds no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2022.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 29th November 2022 ksld 7 8