Telangana High Court
Tippani Ashok Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 21 March, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.1802 of 2021
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Corporation in constructing a compound wall by encroaching into the petitioner's property at Flat No.3/MIG (in first floor) in MIG Block No.29, bearing Municipal No.15-31-2M-29/3 with a built up area of 496.66 sq. Feet along with undivided share of land admeasuring 44.24 sq. Yards, situated at Phase-III, KPHB Colony in Sy.No.1009 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Old Kukatpally , now under GHMC Kukatpally Circle, Ranga Reddy now Medchal, Malkajgiri District, under the guise and claiming as open space pursuant to the alleged revised layout vide layout permit No.10472/MP/HUDA/1980 dated 10-06-83, which is unapproved, and thereby forcibly constructing compound wall by blocking access to the minimum 40 feet road as required as per Layout Rules, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Smt B. Rachna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6, Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for LK, J 2 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 respondent No.5 and Mr. C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 8.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid property vide document No.6466/2014 executed on 03.11.2014 and ever since, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. She submits that the Executive Engineer (Housing) Western Division, A.P.Housing Board, had executed a gift deed in favour of Municipal Council, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, represented by its Commissioner, on July, 2002 pertaining to land in Sy.No.1009 of Kukatpally Village, under Phase-III KPHB Colony and there are 28 open spaces, 7 roads and 4 drainage mains as per the gift deed. She further submits that as per the revised layout and gift deed, 40 feet road was reduced and blocked without any access to residents of MIG 29 to the main 40 feet road and by blocking the 40 feet road to the above mentioned open space was gifted to GHMC and there is no proper minimum 30 feet road to MIG 29 as per Layout Rules. Learned counsel submits that under the guise of the alleged gift deed, the GHMC started constructing compound wall in the land adjacent to the MIG Block-29 by encroaching the land belonging to MIG-29 and MIG-90 Blocks and if they are continued to do so, ingress and egress to the residents of MIG 29 to the main road will be affected and the respondents have done the same without following LK, J 3 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 due process of law and particularly when the layout is not revised and such action of the respondents is contrary to the layout Rules.
4. In the counter filed by the respondent Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner is trying to grab the public property of layout open space and the same is protecting by the GHMC by constructing the compound wall, but the petitioner has threatened the officials of the GHMC stating that respondent No.4 has lodged a complaint to the police and the same was registered as Cr.No.226 of 2020 and the case is pending before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kukatpally.
However, it is stated in Crl.P.No.4358 of 2020, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings. It is the case of the respondents that as per the layout, the petitioner is encroaching the public space and as such, they are constructing a compound wall to protect the same. It is stated that once layout was released with open spaces, the owner of the property, who has obtained layout, has no right over the layout open spaces and the same is exclusively meant for general public vested with local authority i.e., GHMC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the record. The contention of the respondents is that it is the revised layout. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the GHMC has encroached upon his land and constructing a compound wall. It is the case of GHMC that they are constructing a compound wall in the open LK, J 4 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 space and the petitioner has no locus to question the same. Now, the disputed fact is whether the GHMC has constructed a compound wall in the land belonging to the petitioner. Unless and until a survey is conducted demarcating the boundaries, it cannot be decided whether the compound wall is constructed by the GHMC in the land belonging to the petitioner.
6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application seeking survey of the said land and basing on the said report, the respondents are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents shall not carry any constructions in the property of the petitioner. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 21st March 2022 sj LK, J 5 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 LK, J 6 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 1890 OF 2022 Between: ..,PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the lvlunicipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Metpally tvlunicipality, represented by its Commissioner, Metpally Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to iSSue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No. 2, in passing the revocation of permission orders in Letter No. 109146/METP/O41412021, dated. Ogl12t2o21, for construction of residential house Ground Floor in plot of land of the petitioner admeasuring 231.86 Sq.Yds equal to 193.86 Sq.Mtrs, in Sy.No. 12101 4 situated at Metpally Croper and Mandal of Jagtial District, is nothing but arbitraff illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. A NO:1 OF 202 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the revocation orders passed by the respondent No.2, in Letter 109146/METP/041412021 , dated.0911212021, thereby direct the respondent No.2, not to interfere in any manner in construction of the residential building in accordance with the sanctioned plan, by the petitioner in her plot of land admeasuring 231.86 Sq.Yds equal to 193.86 Sq.Mtrs, in Sy.No. 12101s&' situated at Metpally Proper and Mandal of Jagtial District. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1:
GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV N, Counsel for the Respondent No.2:SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER Joginapally Shilpa, W/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Age- 41 Years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. Flat.No. 302, Pavani Residency, Pet Basheerabad, Near HDFC Bank, Jeedimetla, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District. ( t' THE HON( UIIABLE SMI".IUSTICE P. MADITA\'I DEVI ORDER This Writ Petition has been t-rled ur-rder Article 216 of the Constitution of Ir dia seeking Writ 01'Mandamus declaring the action of respondent N< .2 in passing thc levocirtion ol'permission orders in l.etter No. I 09 I 4( /M[rl'P/0,i i.+,20] I dt.09. i 2.102 I tbr constnrction of' residential hous< ground lloor in a plot of land of the LK, J 7 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 petitioner admeasuring 23 1.86 sq. yds., equal to 193.86 sq. nrtrs.. in Sy.No. 1210/E si .uated at Metpally proper and Mandal of Jagtial District, as illega., arbitrary and violative of Arlicles 14, l9 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the provisions of the Telangana Muni, ipalities Act. l0l t) 2, Brief lacts leading to the filing ol this Writ Petition are that the petitioner had rrade an application tbr construction of residential house in her plot of land admeasuring 23 1.86 sc1. yds., eqr.ral to 193.86 sq. mtrs., in Sy.)lo. 1210/E situated at lvletpall), proper rnd Mandal o1' Jagtial District. I -espondent No.2, atter being satisfied about the prima facie title over h :r plot ot' land, was pleased to grant permission in her favour throt gh permission No. l09l46IMETP,'041412021 dt.03.12,2021 a ter collecting the required pelmission charges tiom her, i.e., an ar rount of Rs.821,958,/-.
Thereafter, vide proceedings \4 RrI PE',r'lTtO\ NO.l890 0F 2022 W.P.No.1890 of2022 No.l09l46/METPl04l4l202t dt.09. 12.2021, the permission granted to the petitioner was levoked without any notice to the petitioner. In the order dt.09. 12.202 l, the remarks lor rejection of the application are mentioned as follows: o The proposals are not in accordance to the Telangana Building Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dt.07.04.2012 and its amendments. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to represent before revocation of the permission already granted to her. 3. Learned counsel for respoudent No.2 was heard. 4. Learned Government Pleader lor Municipal Administration and Urban Developrnent submitted that the peritioner had applied through TS- bPASS as per the Telangana Srale Building Permission Approval and Self Cerrillcation Systerr (TS-bPASS) Act. 2020. I'he petitioner was granted instant atrrproval on subrnitting the application and after verification of.the application, building permission shall be sanctioned to the petitioner within a period of 2 I days and if it is not so sanctioned, then it shall be considered as deemed approval. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Venumadhav, the leamed Government Pleader for Municipal Adrninistration and Urban Development appearing for respondent ) No.l and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, it is \ \ w,P.No I890 o12022 3 '1/ observed that Sec ion 7 ofthe TS-bPASS Act prescribes the procedure for obtaining buil ling permissions and as per Sub-Section (g) thereof, the applicant has ,o submit an online application along with reqr-risite documents as r lay be prescribed and such clocuments upon submission shall re examined by the Single Window Comrnittee set up for this pLlrpo ie and shorlf'alls or. inconrpleteness or cases where further informati< n or clarification is needed shall be comrnunicated to the applicant vithin l0 days frorn the date of applying, in such manner, as may be prescribed. Therefore, it is noticed that befbre revoking the perrrission, the ar.rthorities are required to give a notice of shortfall or LK, J 8 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 inc,rmpleteness or clarification to the applicant and alter considering the e rplanation of the applicant only, a final decision of sanctioning or re\ ocation can be taken. In the present case, it is clear that the responde nts have not followed the procedure as laid down under Sub- Sectior l (8) of Section 7 of the TS-bpASS Act. 2020. 6. This Ilon'rle Crrurr llt W.P.\o.20398 ol 202 I and batch dr.l3.1?.2021 ha: considered this issr.re at lengrh and at paras l2 and l3 has directed as under: "12. n view of'the ubove, this Cour.t is ol the opinktn thot in order to jt stiJy the uction tuken b1, the resporulcnt .luthoritics in revoking the building permissions ol the peritioner,r, they ought to have acted -airly and in stict adherence to the principle: oJ nalural justi, e. However, since the learned Special Government Pleader, on nstruction.\. .suhmittetl thot thc impul1ned reyocotion lellers passet ugainst thc petitit.tners. .t.tartd y,ilhdrautn to the extent of revocatio t of permission to construct builclings, the .yaicl w.P.No.1890 of 2022 -l suhmission i.s pltcccl on recortl. Tha impugned revocalion lelters passed by the rcspontlenl uutlrrities aguitls! lhc Pelilioners stand v,ithdrau;n to lhe exlcnl ttf revocolion qf permission lo construcl built)ings, in lernls rtf suhmissions made hy the learned Special Government Pleader. The pelitioners are directed to submit their explanations lo the ohiccli()ns pointed out in lhe impugned revocalion lcller.s lo Ihe respondenl aulhorities within a period of rwo 0) tt'eekt.li'on lodq. On such sttbmission o.f explanations by lhe pelitioners, lhe rcspondcnl aulhorilics are entitled to pass appropriale ortlers. in accordcrnce u'ilh the provision'r o/ IS-bP'4SS Act anti the Rules nrucle lhereunder' vithin a period of one ( l) week .fi'om the date oJ'receipt ttf such explanations ln case, if no orders .re passed by the respondent authorities within the time indicated above, there shall be deemed approval of the applications of the pefirioners frled for construction of buildings' It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent authorities within the time prescribed on the explanations submitted by the petitioners' lhe pelilioners shall not proceed with any type of constructions in their respective subiect lands.
13. As regurds the conlenlion of lhe learned counsel lbr the pelitioner in W.l'.No.32665 of 2021 thut lhe revocdlion order was passed \Nilhout recorcling ony objeclions, lhe respondent authorities are dir-ectetl to bring the obiections to the notice of the pelitiotler thcrcin t|ithitt a period tf one (t) vieek.from today; and on receipt of such obiecrions, Ihe petitioner shall submit his explanation lo the sdid objections v'ithin tuvo (2) weeks thereafler; and on. submission o/ such explanation by the petitioner' the respondent atdhorities are enlitled to pass appropriate orders in accordance \l)ilh lhe prot'isions of TS-bPASS Act and the rules made thereuntler', wirhin one (11 t'eek -li'om the dute of receipt of such explanatiott. ln cttse if no orders are passed by the respondenl (tttlhorities tt'ithin rhe lime indicated obove' there rhall be deemed approval of the application of the petitioner fled for construction of LK, J 9 W.P.No.1802 of 2021 building. It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent duthorities within the time prescribed on the explcmations submiued by the petttioner, the petitioner shall not proceed with any lype o.[ conslruclions in his subject land " \ // ,\ W.P.No 1890 of 2022 7. In view of the above, the revocarion order dt.09.12.2021 is set aside and the r:spondenls are tltere{br!. directecl to tbllorv the guidelines or the Cirections issued by this Court in W.p.No.20398 ol 2021 and batch dt. 13.12.2021 and process the application ol the petitioner dt.03.l )-.2021 and pass orders accordingly in accordance with law. 8. The Writ l,etition is accordingly, disposed ol. No order as to COSTS 9. Pending n iscellaneous petirions, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closer . ,TRUE COPY// SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISANT REGISTRAR 'tl--"
SECTION OFFICER To, GB NPJ 1. The Principal secn tary to the Municipal Administration Department, state of Telangand, Secreti riat Buildings, Hyderabad' 2' The Commissioner Metpally Municipality, Metpally Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. 3. One CC to SRl. K r'ENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC]
4.TwoCCstoGPFr)RMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighcourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] N. 5. One CC to SRiFT.AVEEN KUMAR(SC FOR GHMC), Advocate IoPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies. 7. One Spare CoPY. q \ HIGH COURT DATED:25101120 22 ORDER WP.No.1890 of i022 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COS]'S. @)*qo 10 tEB 2S2 k * 1r€ Sh IC: t) Dllr c J ,) I