Telangana High Court
Juvvadi Praneeth vs The State Of Telangana on 22 February, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4623 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the representation given by the petitioner through TS-bPASS dated 15.01.2024, 25.01.2024 and 27.01.2024 and with regard to illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 without leaving setback of 15 feet on the front side of the property bearing H. No.10-1-439, Ramnagar village, Karimnagar District, as being illegal, and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2
3. Petitioner contends that the unofficial respondents have taken up construction in the land belonging to them which is opposite to the petitioner's property by dismantling their old house bearing D. No.10-1-439 in violation of building rules, without leaving any area towards road side and also without leaving any setbacks.
4. Petitioner further contends that on noticing the aforesaid construction being made in violation of the building rules and also not leaving 15 feet setback on the front, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and submitted multiple representations bringing to the notice of the authorities of the construction being made in violation of the sanctioned plan and sought for initiation of action to bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan.
5. It is also the further case of the petitioner that such construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan is allowed, the same would lead to traffic jams and cause nuisance.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 would submit that on receiving the complaints from the petitioner, the Town Planning staff of the 2nd respondent have inspected the site under reference and issued notice to the unofficial respondents to submit their 3 documents; and that in response to the notice issued, the unofficial respondents have submitted their reply. By the written instructions, it is also stated that the unofficial respondents have obtained permission for construction from the respondent authorities on 29.12.2023 and construction is being made on the strength of the aforesaid permission.
7. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents would submit that as per the building permission obtained by the unofficial respondents, they were required to leave the setbacks as specified therein.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that however on the 2nd respondent issuing a show cause notice dated 17.02.2024, the unofficial respondents had submitted reply on 19.02.2024 and the officials of the 2nd respondent authority have caused inspection of the subject site and directed the petitioner to leave another additional 5 feet space on the front side than the setback specified in the building permit and the unofficial respondents by leaving the 15 feet setback only has undertaken the construction.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents further submits that as per the sanctioned plan, the unofficial respondents were required to 4 leave only 10 feet as a setback on the front side and since the unofficial respondents have now left 15 feet setback, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard.
10. I have taken note of the submissions made on both sides.
11. A perusal of the building permission as issued by the 2nd respondent authority shows that the unofficial respondents were required to leave the following setbacks while proceeding with the construction:
Front setback: 3 meters, rear setback: 2 meters, side I setback: 2 meters and side II setback: 2 meters.
12. Admittedly, the aforesaid setbacks prescribed in the building permission have not been either revised or modified by the authorities while issuing letter of approval for commencement of work on 29.12.2023 or the unofficial respondents were issued with any notice requiring to maintain any additional set backs.
13. However, since the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents had made a statement to this Court of the unofficial respondents leaving 15 feet setback on the front side as against the 10 feet specified in the building 5 permission and since the claim of the petitioner is also of the unofficial respondents not leaving he setback to the extent of 15 feet, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition stands redressed on account of the unofficial respondents leaving the required setback area and thus, no further orders are necessary.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________
Date: 22.02.2024 T. VINOD KUMAR, J
MRKR