Telangana High Court
Sri Pullagurla Jaipal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 13 September, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.25406 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Mahender Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3 and Sri B. Jagan Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the record.
2. The petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.16-10/2 in Sy.No.135/ ఆ, admeasuring Ac.0-10 gts, (equivalent to 1210 Sq.yards) situated at Bollaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District, on the strength of registered gift settlement deed vide document No.5491 of 2007 dated 31.05.2007. Petitioner obtained permission on 16.09.2017 from the Bollaram Gram Panchayat for construction of industrial shed and the renewal proceedings dated 05.07.2018.
2
3. According to the petitioner, he has constructed shed strictly in accordance with the said permission. Even then, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 13.06.2024 under Section 185 of Telangana Municipal Act, 2019, stating that the petitioner made unauthorized construction in shikam and buffer zone of Kudikunta and conducting business in the name and style of M/s. Race Energyis illegally. According to the respondent No.4, it is unauthorized construction. Seven days time was granted to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the aforesaid notice.
4. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.07.2024. Without considering the said explanation, respondent Nos.3 and 4 came to the subject property and tried to demolish the same without following the due procedure laid down under law. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent Nos.3 and 4, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. Whereas, Sri B. Jagan Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, on 3 instructions, would submit that despite granting seven days time, petitioner did not submit his explanation to the notice 13.06.2024. He has submitted his explanation only on 01.07.2024. Therefore, an order was passed on 27.06.2024 and it was sent to the petitioner through RPAD. In proof of the same, they filed postal receipt. But they have not filed acknowledgment card and postal tracking report in proof of service of same on the petitioner.
6. However, a copy of the same is served on learned counsel for the petitioner today in the open court. Therefore, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipal Act. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty of this Court to prefer the appeal and challenge the said order dated 27.06.2024 and also protection for ten days.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer the appeal under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipal Act challenging the order dated 27.06.2024 4 before the Appellate Authority. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to raise all the grounds/contentions which he has raised in the present writ petition including non- consideration of explanation dated 01.07.2024 before the Appellate Authority and it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the same. In light of the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed not to proceed further pursuant to order dated 27.06.2024 for a period of ten (10) days from today.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J September 13, 2024 PL/PN