Telangana High Court
Ms. Svb Constructions And Developers vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.24771 AND 24871 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, Sri Abhay Kumar Sagar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and with the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
3. The case of the petitioners is that one Mr. K. Yadaiah was the original owner and pattadar of land to an extent of Ac.0.24 gts. in Sy. No.46/EE and 46/AA situated at Yadaiah Colony, Gandhamguda village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with different extents of lands in different survey numbers; that subsequent to the demise of Mr. Yadaiah on 30.12.2001, the Deputy Collector had issued succession 2 proceedings in favour of family members of late Mr. Yadaiah viz., the three sons who have succeeded to the estate of late Yadaiah by way of family partition; that the successors in interest of late Mr. Yadaiah have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 04.06.2022 to an extent of 166.65 square yards in plot No.130/A in Sy. No.46/EE and 46/AA; and thus, the petitioners have become the absolute owners and possessors of the said property.
4. Petitioners further contend that on purchasing the aforesaid property, they had approached the respondent authorities and obtained building permission on 11.10.2023 by paying the necessary charges, including the charges under Layout Regularization Scheme and on the basis of the aforesaid building permission, undertook construction of the individual residential building consisting of Ground + 1 upper floor.
5. Petitioners further contend that while they were proceeding with the construction as per the sanctioned plan, the 3rd respondent authority has issued the impugned proceeding dated 16.08.2024 termed as speaking order calling upon the petitioners to submit explanation along with relevant documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said proceeding; that the petitioners on receiving the aforesaid notice 3 had submitted explanation on 27.08.2024; and that while the aforesaid explanation submitted by the petitioners is pending consideration, the authorities without passing any order thereon are interfering with the ongoing construction being undertaken by the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners claiming to have purchased the land admeasuring 166.65 square yards in Sy. No.46/EE and 46/AA had obtained building permission on 11.10.2023 by claiming that the subject property is in Sy. Nos.46, 47, 48 and 50 of Gandham Guda village; that the petitioners under the guise of making construction on the basis of permission dated 11.10.2023 are, in fact, raising basement and pillars in land in Sy. Nos.62 and 43 which land is notified as Government land and, as such, the authorities have initiated action firstly by issuing notices dated 26.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 and thereafter by issuing the impugned proceeding.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the impugned proceeding is termed as speaking order, since by the contents of the impugned proceeding, the petitioners were called upon to submit explanation within 15 days from the date 4 of receipt of the said proceeding, the authorities would take further action in the matter by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners if any.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. Though the impugned proceeding is titled and termed as speaking order, the contents of the aforesaid proceeding indicate the 3rd respondent authority had directed the petitioners to submit explanation along with relevant documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said proceeding, failing which the petitioners were informed that it would be presumed that they have no explanation to offer, and that the authorities would take further action by treating the construction being made by the petitioners to be an unauthorized structure.
10. The above being the position, this Court is of the view that though the impugned proceeding is termed as speaking order, the same is required to be considered as show cause notice to which admittedly the petitioners have submitted their explanation on 27.08.2024.
11. Since the petitioners had already submitted explanation to the impugned proceeding as issued by the 3rd respondent 5 authority, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are directed to take further action by passing an order by considering the explanation submitted before taking any further action in the matter.
12. It is made clear that in the event the authorities come to conclusion that in order to determine as to whether the construction being made by the petitioners under the guise of building permission obtained in respect of land in Sy. No.46 is by encroaching into the Government land in Sy. No.62 and 43 of Gandhamguda village, the authority shall take steps to get the aforesaid lands surveyed by the concerned survey authorities by issuing notice to the petitioners and take further action thereafter. It is also made clear that pending adjudication, the petitioners shall not undertake any further construction
13. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 09.09.2024 MRKR