Nallagonda Jyothi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in threatening to demolish the compound wall and small room constructed by the petitioner in her house site plot of land admeasuring 100.00 Sq. Yds i.e., 30' Feet X 30' Feet in Sy. No. 401166129, situated at Armoor Village and Marcia, Nizamabad District, and to dispossess her from her said house site plot and threatening that, she shall not proceed with any further construction, by issuing a show cause notice of 3 days dated 3011212O24, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 3111212O24, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 1 4, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Consequently =--ry. set aside the said show cause notice dated 3011212O24 in Lr. No. G1|rP1334912024, thercby direct the respondent No. 2 not to demorish and not to dispossess the petitioner from her smarr room and compound waI constructed in her prot of rand admeasuring 100.00 Sq. yds i.e., 30 Feet X 30 Feet in sy. No. 401166129' situated at Armoor Viilage and Mandar, Nizamabad District, thereby not to prevent in any manner in proceeding with the construction try the petitioner in accordance with the sanction plan. lA NO: 1 oF 202s Petition under section r 5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No. 2 not to demorish the smarr room and r:ompound wa constructed in her plot of land admeasuring .100.00 Sq. yds i.e., 30 Feet X 30 Feet in sy. No. 40 1/66/29, situated at Armoor Viilage and Mandar, Nizamabad District, thereby not to dispossess. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K.VENUMADHAV counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGp FoR McpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIO N No.54 oF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, petitioner, Iearned Assistant learned counsel for the Government Pleader for Urban DeveloPment for Krishna ReddY, learned MuniciPal Administration and respondent No.1 and Mr'Putta Standing Counsel for respondent No'2' 2. The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute of the house site, admeasuring 1OO owner and Possessor feet x 3O feet in SY'No'401/66l29' square Yards i.e., 3O situated at Armoor Village and Mandal' within respondent No.2-Municipality. It was an assigned land in favour of the petitioner by virtue of proceedings No'B2/ 1489/2003' dated 08.11.2003. She has obtained building permit order' dated O7.O2.2Olg for construction of residential house from respondent No.2. As per the said building permit order' the petitioner has to commence the construction on or before 07.Oa.2O2O and complete on or before 07'O2'2O25' According to the petitioner, she is making construction strictly in t 2 accordance with the said building permit order and it will be completed by 07.O2.2025. 3. While she was proceeding with the construction in .accordance with the said building permit order, r.espondent No.2 tried to demolish the compound wall and small room constructed in the subject property, without following the procedure laid down under the law. Therefore, shr: has filed W.P.No.32BCt3 of 2024 and the said writ petition came up for hearing on 22.11.2024. Mr.M.Ram Mohan Redd-r,, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 producerl written instructions stating that respondent No.2 authorities inspected the site and found that one Mr.N.Rajendhar Goud is making construction, but not the petitioner, without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.2 and they will take steps, in accordance with law. Recording the said submission, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.2 to serve the notice on the petitioner to submit building permit order, dated OZ.O2.2Olg,:tc., and on receipt of explanation ald also documents from the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and dispose it of, in accordance with law. If there is altv deviation I l i l I l i I 3 in the construction to the building permit order, dated 07 .O2.2O19, this Court has granted liberty to respondent No'2 to take action against the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act,

4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice, dated 30. 12.2024 stating that the petitioner has obtained building permit order by submitting fabricated documents. The patta certificate produced by her is a fabricated one. Three days time was granted to submit explanation. She has submitted explanation on 3l'12'2024 stating that patta obtained by her vide patta certificate No.B2/1.489 12003, dated 08.11.2003 is genuine one' She has also produced the proceedings in Lr.No.B/Spl-1/2O18, dated 06.10.2018 of respondent No.3, wherein it was stated that patta is genuine. The said information was furnished by respondent No.3-Tahsildhar to respondent No'2 at the request made by respondent No.2. Without considering the said explanation dated 31.12.2024, respondent No'2 is trying to demolish the subject property' Therefore, challenging the said 4 action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Whereas, Mr.Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has submitted explanation on 3 1.12.2024 to the shou^cause notice dated 30.12.2024. Respondent No.2 will consider the same ald pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordalce with the Telangana Municipalities Ar:t, 2O19. Respondent No.2 will also consider the a_foresaid letter issued by respondent No.3 stating that the patta certificate obtained by the petitioner is genuine.

6. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the explanation dated 31.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, dated 30. 12.2024 and proceedings in Lr.No.B/Spl-1 /2Ot8, dated 06.10.2018 of respondt:nt No.3 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance rvith law, by putting the petitioner on notice ald affording her an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.2 shatl complete the entire exercise within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.2 is directed \ I ) not to interfere with the construction carried out by the petitioner as per the building permit order, dated 07 'O2'2O19 ' However, the petitioner shall make construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order, failing which, respondent No.2 is at liberty to take action in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed' SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTAN REG //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration Department, 2. The Commissioner, Armoor Municipality, Armoor Proper and Mandal, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. SE Nizamabad District. District.

3. The Tahsildar, Arnoor Mandal, Armoor Proper and Mandal, Nizamabad

4. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad {OUTI

8. Two CD Copies To, I BSR BS V-L HIGH COURT DATED: 0210112025 ORDER WP.No.S4 o12025 1 gE SIAr(. f, 0 E ,lll'i zlii ( c J i C6 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS $ I6