Telangana High Court
M/S. S. V. Multi Logitech Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Telangana on 17 June, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.26025 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner company in respect of godown admeasuring to an extent of 58,359.89sq.meters situated in survey No.104, parts of 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 143, 144 and 106 of Fathepur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Mr. S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner' company godown to an extent of two lakhs square feet. It is stated that after purchasing the property, the petitioner company had approached the revenue authorities and modification was also done by them. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has approved for construction of godowns consisting of ground floor in survey No.104 of Fathepur Village and petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,37,88,638/- to that effect and on the same day, the respondent No.3 has addressed a letter to the respondent No.2. It is W.P.No.26025 of 2022 2 stated that in spite of obtaining permission by the petitioner company, the respondents are interfering with the godown and trying to demolish the same.
4. Learned standing counsel for HMDA submits that what has been granted in favor of the petitioner company is technical approval and after obtaining technical approval, the petitioner has to approach the municipal authorities and only after obtaining the permission from the municipal authorities, the petitioner company can make constructions.
5. Learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation submits that basing on the technical approval granted by HMDA, without paying the fees as required, without getting the approval from the local body i.e. from the respondent municipalities, the petitioner company has proceeded with the construction. He submits that they have issued notices on 14.07.2021 and 28.08.2021 directing the petitioner company to stop further construction and submit certain documents. It is stated that in spite of the said notices, the petitioner company has not replied to the municipal authorities. Hence, they are proposing to demolish the structures.
6. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner company while pointing out on the technical approval granted by the HMDA submits that basing on the said approval, they have made W.P.No.26025 of 2022 3 constructions.
7. The fact remains is that even after the technical approval, the petitioner company has to get approval from the municipal authorities in order to proceed with the construction and no document is filed by the learned standing counsels in this regard. Further, there is no whisper in the entre affidavit about the notices issued by the municipal authorities on 14.07.2021 and 28.08.2021. The petitioner company without obtaining the permission from the municipal authorities cannot proceed with the construction and they have also failed to submit any replies to the show cause notices. It appears that the respondent municipal authorities have followed the due procedure. Hence, the petitioner company is not entitled for any relief from this court as they could not make out any legal ground.
8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that they will take appropriate steps. Hence, requested to grant 10 days to the petitioner company and till such time, the respondents may not interfere with the subject premises of the petitioner company and they may not take coercive steps.
9. Taking into consideration the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of (10) days in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, the respondents are at liberty to take W.P.No.26025 of 2022 4 appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
_______________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 17th June, 2022 gvl