Telangana High Court
B.Narsing Raj vs The State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 25 March, 2022
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.21791 OF 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 2 to 7 in taking action on the illegal construction of respondents 8 to 10 in the house plot being H.No.19-1-130, 131, Umda Bazar, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad-64 in spite of repeated complaints dt.20.02.2016, 21.06.2021, 30.06.2021, 07.07.2021 and 09.08.2021 to respondents 2 to 7, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the owner of H.No.19-1-132 and 133 of Umda Bazar, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad. Since the house constructed thereon was 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition, the same was demolished and the petitioner intended to construct a house thereon but the respondent No.8 stopped him from doing so. After demolition of the house, the petitioner noticed that the neighbour, i.e., respondent No.8 in W.P.No.21791 of 2021 2 H.No.19-1-130, 131 was trying to construct RCC columns on the Southern side of his plot and was trying to encroach the common lane of 18" width in between both the houses on the Eastern side. Therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint to the official respondents on 20.02.2016 and thereupon work was stopped, but later in the year 2018, respondent No.8 has got a house built and the neighbour opened a door, windows, ventilators into the common area towards petitioner's house and also built temporary asbestos shed and room on the North Eastern side of the petitioner using the wall of the petitioner. Against these deviations, the petitioner raised objections before the authorities. But since the authorities failed to take any action thereon, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition before this Court.
3. It is the complaint of the petitioner that though he has obtained permission for construction of a house in March, 2021, respondents 8 to 10 are interfering with the construction work of the petitioner and the petitioner was also not allowed to demolish part of a wall of his property, but instead respondents 8 to 10 have made construction of illegal structures in the front portion of their property without any valid W.P.No.21791 of 2021 3 permission. In evidence thereof, the petitioner has filed photographs at pages 34 to 36 of the writ papers.
4. The respondents 2 to 7 have filed counter affidavits stating that the petitioner has civil disputes with his neighbours, i.e., respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein and that the department cannot go into the documents and link documents of the unofficial respondents and also illegal constructions and permissions of the unofficial respondents. It is submitted that there is a civil suit between the parties and civil disputes are to be resolved thereunder. It is submitted that in order to resolve the personal disputes between them, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition as party in person.
5. The unofficial respondent No.8 has also filed a counter stating that respondents 8 to 10 have commenced the construction of their house only after obtaining permission from the authorities on 06.04.2015 and no notice from respondent No.2 has ever been received by her with regard to any deviations. It is submitted that though the property of the petitioner which was in dilapidated condition was demolished on 21.10.2020, one of the walls remained intact and the petitioner had requested for demolition of the same and offered money W.P.No.21791 of 2021 4 for the same assuring that the wall would be demolished and reconstructed. But they did not accept the offer of the petitioner and told him that they had no objection for reconstruction of his house in the land owned by him and that they have taken all requisite measures by reconstructing their house by leaving setbacks towards the wall. As regards the shed constructed on the roof comprising of asbestos sheets, it is submitted that the same is within the property of respondent No.8 and not in the land belonging to the petitioner. It is submitted that the complaints of the petitioner are without any basis. It is admitted that civil suits are pending before Civil Court between the writ petitioner and them.
6. The petitioner/ Sri B. Narsing Raj appearing as party-in-person however points out that though respondent No.8 had title to only 222 square yards of land having acquired the same by way of a gift deed, but she had claimed title to an extent of 350 square yards and had accordingly sought permission for construction on the whole of the area which is illegal. Thus, according to him, the permission has been obtained by respondent No.8 by fraud. He submitted that his only prayer is to seek a direction to the official respondents to consider his W.P.No.21791 of 2021 5 complaints against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.8 and to ensure that there is no illegal encroachment of his land by the unofficial respondents.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is seen that respondent No.8 has constructed the house in the year 2016, whereas the petitioner's house was more than 100 years old and the same was demolished in the year 2020. Therefore, there could not have been any encroachment of the petitioner's land by the unofficial respondents as alleged by the writ petitioner. As regards the allegation that respondent No.8 has constructed on the wall of the petitioner after the demolition of the dilapidated building of the petitioner, the official respondents are directed to examine the same and if it is found that construction is made on the wall of the petitioner, then action should be taken by issuing due notice to all the concerned. The petitioner is entitled to construct the compound wall around his land and if respondent No.8 has made any deviations from the approved construction plan, the official respondents are required to take action in accordance with law. The complaint of the petitioner is that the doors and windows of the building of the unofficial respondents have been W.P.No.21791 of 2021 6 opened into the land of the petitioner in deviation of the building plan. This Court is of the opinion that the official respondents are bound to look into the complaints of the petitioner and if such complaint is found to be true, they are required to take action thereon in accordance with law. The respondents are directed accordingly.
8. As regards the gift deed and the permission obtained by the unofficial respondents over an extent of 350 square yards as against 222 square yards owned by them, the same involves determination of question of fact which can only be decided by the competent civil Court and as submitted by both parties, the parties are already before civil Court. The petitioner can take all steps to safe guard his property but he cannot complain if there is no encroachment of his land by his neighbours. The official respondents are therefore directed to consider the complaints of the petitioner with regard to the construction made by respondent No.8 over the wall of the petitioner's property and also about the opening of doors and windows into the petitioner's property in deviation of the sanctioned building plan and take action thereon in accordance with law.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. W.P.No.21791 of 2021 7
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 25.03.2022 Svv