Telangana High Court
Mr.Magani Shiva Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.Nos.3637, 3656, 3664, 3777, 3799 and 3803 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of 1st respondent, Sri Praveen Veerjala, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Municipal Corporation and Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents, and perused the record. With their consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal.
3. In all these Writ Petitions, it is the common case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents in these Writ Petitions made construction without having any valid sanction from the concerned Authorities, and thus the said constructions made by the unofficial respondents are unauthorized and illegal constructions made in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). 2
4. Petitioner contends that in spite of the existence of the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal constructions being brought to the notice of the concerned authorities by submitting representations dated 19-01-2024, 23-01-2024, 30-01-2024 and 31-01-2024, no action is initiated against such unauthorized and illegal constructions, and that the official respondents are dragging their feet on the subject matter by not initiating any action.
5. Per contra, Sri Praveen Veerjala, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation in all the Writ Petitions other than W.P.No.3664 of 2024 would submit that all the structures/buildings involved in the present Writ Petitions are more than 20 years old and in existence since then, when the subject area under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat initially and thereafter upgraded to Municipality and later merged into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the houses were in existence more than 20 years when the same was under the control of Gram Panchayat, the Authorities would cause verification of the records and take further action on the 3 unauthorized and illegal constructions if any made by the unofficial respondents by following due process of law.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the unofficial respondent in W.P.No.3803 of 2004 had obtained building permission for construction of stilt + 2 upper floors, however made one extra floor and that the authorities would take necessary steps to bring the aforesaid construction in conformity with the sanction plan.
8. Sri K.Siddhartha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing in W.P.No.3664 of 2024 submits that the property involved in W.P.No.3664 of 2024 stands in the name of P.Vani (4th respondent) and the same has been assessed to property tax since February, 2014 as per records available.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the subject constructions are situated in Bestawada slum of Khairatabad area.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that for the construction made in the aforesaid slum, no permission has been obtained by any owner.
4
11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Authorities would cause verification of records and initiate action against the aforesaid property, if it is made in violation of the provisions of the Act.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents appearing through Hybrid mode submits that the construction made by the unofficial respondents are very old structures existing when the subject area was under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat.
13. Learned counsel for unofficial respondents further submits that in the event of respondent authorities initiating any action against the aforesaid construction made by the unofficial respondents, they may be directed to follow due process of law to enable the unofficial respondents to put forth their pleas and substantiate their claim of the structures being old structures.
14. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
15. While, it is the case of the petitioner of the unofficial respondents having made new construction in the place of existing old structure without obtaining any permission or sanction from the respondent authorities, it is the counter-claim of unofficial respondents that since the petitioner himself had made an 5 unauthorized and illegal construction against which the unofficial respondents had approached this Court for demolition of the said construction, no action having been initiated, the petitioner in order to settle the score has filed the present Writ Petitions.
16. Be that as it may, neither the construction made by the petitioner nor that of the unofficial respondents without obtaining valid sanction or permission from the authorities can make the construction a legal construction on account of inter se disputes between the parties nor the parties can seek equity in illegality.
17. As the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent authorities have informed to this Court that the authorities would take further action against the unauthorized and illegal construction alleged to have been made by the unofficial respondents as complained, by following due process, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities should be directed to initiate action against the unauthorized and illegal constructions by following due process of law after putting all the parties concerned on notice enabling them to adduce necessary evidence and take necessary action thereon.
6
18. Subject to above observations and direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 21.02.2024 Vsv