Telangana High Court
Muralidhar Upadhyay, Hyderabad vs Metropolitan Commissioner, Hmda, ... on 15 March, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27289 of 2016
ORDER:
The present writ petition came to be filed praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in executing and registering sale deed in favour of the petitioner and further proposing to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of H.No.247, MIG Category, Madhuban Residential Complex, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct respondent No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property after collecting dues, if any, and for other reliefs.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for a house in MIG category in Madhuban Residential Complex, Mailardevpally, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the year 1979 and the same was allotted in his favour and possession of the same was delivered to him in the year 1987 by way of letter, dated 11.03.1987. It is the further case of the petitioner that for eking out the 2 livelihood he has left Hyderabad and residing temporarily in Rajasthan and when he came back to Hyderabad, he has seen that the house is in dilapidated condition, therefore, he requested respondent No.1 authorities to register the said house in his favour by receiving balance sale consideration. It is his further case that respondent No.1 is not registering the house in his favour and taking advantage of the same, respondent No.2 has created certain documents over the house property and claimed that the house, which was allotted to the petitioner, is belongs to him. In these circumstances, the petitioner has constrained to file the present writ petition.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Admittedly, the cause title in the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not made the proper and necessary parties as party respondents.
4. Sri V.Narimha Gowd, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority is nothing to do with the allotment of the house or the quarters to the petitioner 3 and as the petitioner has not made the proper and necessary parties as party respondents the present writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 by creating documents is trying to occupy the property allotted by respondent No.1 to the petitioner in the year 1979 by collecting instalments. The Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2016 for the alleged allotment made by respondent No.1 on 11.03.1987. The writ petition is filed merely after 28 years that too without explaining any delay except stating that for eking livelihood he went to Rajasthan and after coming back from Rajasthan he has seen the dilapidated condition of the house. Since the reasons explained in the affidavit with regard to the inordinate delay of 28 years is not satisfactorily explained to exercise the discretion vested with this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is barred by delay and latches.
4
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has given liberty to avail the appropriate remedies available under law by approaching the appropriate forum. No costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 15.03.2023 gkv