Telangana High Court
Anugu Rajashekar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 13 June, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1260 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 4, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 & 6, Sri Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, and perused the record.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the sole and absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in survey No.929/A/2 situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District; and that the 8th respondent started making construction by entering into his land, claiming to have obtained building permission from the 3rd respondent, dt.08.11.2023.
3. Petitioner further contends that since, the 8th respondent while obtaining building permission, dt.08.11.2023 had resorted to 2 suppression of fact and false representation, he had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation/complaint, dt.07.01.2024, seeking revocation of the building permission granted in favour of the 8th respondent; and that as the respondents- authorities have not taken any action, he filed the present writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the authorities on receiving the aforesaid representation/complaint from the petitioner have caused verification and thereafter issued proceedings under Section 22 of HMDA Act, 2008, dt.03.06.2024, cancelling the building permission granted in favour of the unofficial respondent No.8 for construction of a building consisting of Stilt + 5 upper floors in plot No.142, 143, 144 Southern Side Part admeasuring 334.25 Sq. Mtrs., in survey No.858/P, 914 to 939 and 941/P situated at Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District.
5. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the aforesaid cancellation order has also been sent to the unofficial respondent No.8 through registered post under due acknowledgment on 07.06.2024. 3
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that a copy of the said cancellation order was also served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent today.
7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
8. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since, the authorities have passed an order of cancellation, dt.03.06.2024, pursuant to the representation/complaint made by the petitioner, dt.07.01.2024, the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition stands redressed.
9. However, it is to be noted that since, the 2nd respondent- authority while issuing the aforesaid proceeding, dt.03.06.2024, had marked a copy of the same to respondents No.3 & 4, the said authorities are required to take note of the order and ensure that no construction is made on the basis of the aforesaid permission obtained by the unofficial respondent, as the same has been cancelled. However, it is open for the unofficial respondent to call in question the said cancellation proceeding, if he is aggrieved by the same.
10. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
4
11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 13th June, 2024.
gra 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.1260 of 2024 Dt.13.06.2024 gra