Telangana High Court
Peddapalli Ravi vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.6499 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the Speaking Order dt.02.03.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles natural justice, with a consequential relief to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.
3. Though this Court ordered notice to the unofficial respondent and the petitioner having taken out notice to the unofficial respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due/speed post, since, it is stated that the same is awaited for service on the unofficial respondent and having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the service of the notice on the unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 2
4. Petitioner contends that being an absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 196.56 square meters in Sy.No.100 situated at Durgammagadda of Karimnagar Town and District, he had approached the respondents-authorities and obtained building permission for construction of ground + one upper floor, on 13.05.2023.
5. Petitioner further contends that while he is proceeding with the construction in terms of the building permission granted, the 3rd respondent authority had issued the impugned proceeding dt.02.03.2024 termed as 'Speaking Order', directing the petitioner to maintain status quo in respect of the construction and also directed to remove the compound wall in excess of the permission.
6. Petitioner further contends that merely by stating that there are civil disputes with regard to the subject land, the respondents-authorities cannot direct the parties to maintain status quo, as the authorities have not conferred with the power of granting injunction orders, as was done in the present case.
7. Petitioner further contends that as of today, no suits are pending in respect of the subject property for the respondents-authorities to claim existence of disputes, which are civil in nature.
8. Petitioner further contends that, since, no civil suits in respect of the subject property are pending adjudication before any competent Court 3 of law, the Speaking Order passed firstly, directing the petitioner to maintain status quo and secondly, directing the petitioner and one L.Narayana to settle the ownership dispute in the competent Court of law, is unsustainable.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner had taken permission for construction of ground + one upper floor over an extent of 196.56 square meters, and had constructed a compound wall in excess of the said permission to an extent of 2757.63 square yards by encroaching on to the neighbour's land i.e. L.Ravi, and as such, the authorities have issued the impugned proceeding directing the parties to maintain status quo and resolve the dispute by approaching the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.
10. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent fairly submits that before issuing the impugned proceeding termed as 'Speaking Order', the authorities did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation and if this Court were to show indulgence by setting aside the impugned order, the authorities would follow due process of law.
11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 4
12. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and taking into consideration that the impugned proceeding has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the said order impugned in the present Writ Petition cannot be sustained.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dt.02.03.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent is set aside. However, the respondents-authorities are at liberty to take action afresh by following due process of law, if so advised.
14. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:02.04.2024 GJ