Telangana High Court
Sri.Adama Venkat Ramana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.10992 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not taking any action in accordance with law basing on the petitioners' representations dt.06.03.2022, 11.10.2022 and 06.01.2024, against the construction being made by respondent No.4 being in violation of G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dt.07.04.2012 and the Telangana Building Rules, 2012, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on the representations of the petitioners.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri K.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.4 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.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 4th respondent has commenced construction at House No.2-8- 254, Mukurampura, Karimnagar, in the place of existing R & B guest 2 house, without maintaining minimum setbacks, which it is contended is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the width of the existing road in the lane is about 17 feet, while the width of the road should at least be 30 feet and thus, as the 4th respondent has taken up new construction, including construction of building and compound wall, and as such it is required to maintain the setbacks prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.168.
5. Petitioners further contend that since, the 4th respondent which is a Government agency, is proceeding with the construction by not leaving the setbacks from the existing boundary lane, they had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted various representations, with the last representation being 06.01.2024, and in spite of the same, no action is taken. Hence, this Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submits that the construction of compound wall undertaken by the 4th respondent is in line with the Building line of the other existing buildings and no part of the compound wall being constructed is protruding out, and thus, there is no alteration of the building line.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that inasmuch there is no proposal to widen the road, the existing boundary line of the property 3 would continue and as such, the 4th respondent is undertaking construction of compound wall.
8. Insofar as the construction of building is concerned, learned Standing Counsel submits that the prescribed setbacks on all sides from the compound wall have already been left while making the construction, and as such, no deviation has been made by the 4th respondent.
9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
10. Though the petitioners claim to have sought for information with regard to the construction being made by the 4th respondent by making an application dt.04.11.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the information that has been sought for under the said application relates to the construction work that has been undertaken for construction of Government guest house in the place of existing R & B guest house at Karimnagar and does not show the petitioners seeking information as to (1) whether there is any proposal to widen the existing road; (2) if so, the width of the existing road, the proposed road and the required area to be marked as road affected area; (3) the number of properties that would be affected on account of the proposed widening of the road; and (4) any sanction or approval for the aforesaid proposal accorded.
11. Petitioners, instead of seeking the aforesaid information, have filed the present Writ Petition alleging that the 4th respondent is required to 4 leave the setback from the boundary line which claim of the petitioners is not supported either by the requirement prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012 or under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.
12. Further, it is also to be noted that from the material placed on record, it is evident that the construction of compound wall undertaken by the 4th respondent in respect of the property belonging to the Government is in line with the existing buildings in the lane and on the other hand, it is noticed that roof of some of the structures raised, in fact, are protruding on to the road, while the 4th respondent is only constructing a compound wall in straight line with the existing building line.
13. Further, it is also to be noted that if the case of the petitioners is accepted and the respondents-authorities are to leave the road margin from its boundary line, without there being a proposal for widening of the road, the said setback area would become a fertile ground for being encroached, which, instead of addressing the cause being advocated by the petitioners, would lead to further complications on account of the said encroachment.
14. In view of the above, since, this Court does not find any merit in the claim being made by the petitioners, the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
5
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:25.04.2024 GJ 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.10992 of 2024 25.04.2024 GJ 7