Telangana High Court
Bobbala Rajireddy vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 6 December, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.40836 of 2022
O R D E R:
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue Writ Order or Direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in File No.GWMC/HOTTP/E-23670/2022 dt.22-07-2022 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and set aside the same and further declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent issued vide Roc.No.UC/25/T P AN No 28/CIR-I/2022 dt.02-11-2022 is also illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, one without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and consequently set aside the same and .....".
2. Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with one Satyapal Reddy have purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.20Gts in Sy.No.561 and 564 situated at Ursu Village, Khila Warangal Mandal, Warangal District through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1999 and the said Satyapal Reddy has sold his share of property in favour of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 18.10.2021 and petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the entire property. It is stated that the petitioner with an intention to construct a residential house has made an application seeking permission and by proceedings dated 19.04.2022, permission was granted to an extent of 4749.85sq.yards and then, the petitioner has started construction of compound wall. It is stated that a show cause notice dated 10.06.2022 was issued by 2 the respondents calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the building permission shall not be cancelled basing on the representation of the unofficial respondent that the petitioner has obtained the permission suppressing the orders passed in W.P.No.26340 of 2003 and pendency of the suit i.e.O.S.No.82 of 2019. It is submitted that the complaint copy is not furnished to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given reply stating that he is not a party to the said writ petition and no orders are passed by the court below where the petitioner is defendant in the suit. He submits that the respondents have set aside the building permission as if there is a status-quo order by this court in W.P.No.26340 of 2003. He submits that the respondents can only cancel the building permission under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 when there is suppression or misrepresentation of facts. It is submitted that there is no suppression of facts on behalf of the petitioner as none of the applications for building permission do not contain any column with regard to the pending litigation and admittedly, there are no orders from the court. He submits that he has taken out personal notice to the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 and respondent No.4 refused to receive the notice and as far as respondent No.5 is concerned, notice 3 is served and Mr. G. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel entered appearance on his behalf.
3. Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned standing counsel submits that taking into consideration the pending civil litigation and status- quo orders passed by this court in W.P.No.26340 of 2003, the respondents have revoked the building permission. It is stated that there is absolutely no illegality in the said order passed by the respondents.
4. In the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, the respondents have repeatedly mentioned about the status-quo orders passed by this court in W.P.No.26340 of 2003. This court has disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 29.08.2017 wherein this court has observed that the aggrieved person shall invoke the common law remedy claiming the title over the said land and also seek appropriate orders, if any, from the court and till such time, status-quo obtained as on that date shall be maintained with regard to possession and entries made in the record. Admittedly, the petitioners therein have already filed a civil suit i.e.O.S.No.82 of 2019. Hence, the respondents cannot say that there is a status-quo order and the same was suppressed by the petitioner and all the more, the petitioner is not a party to the said writ petition. Further, there no restraint orders are passed in O.S.No.82 of 2019 either restraining the 4 petitioner or the respondents from going ahead with the construction. As the 4th respondent has refused to receive the notice, it amounts to deemed service of notice and learned counsel for the 5th respondent is not present. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation letter dated 02.11.2022 are liable to be set aside.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation letter dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
_______________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 6th December, 2022 gvl Note: Issue CC forthwith