Bairu Janardhan Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring against the action of the Respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking action by considering the Representation dt.23.09.2024 submitted to the Respondent No.'l who inturn forwarded to the Respondent NO.2 for taking nec€ ssary action against the issuance of intimation in file No.R262726/GWlvlC/ClR-ll/PP2024, Dt.O3.06.2024, dirercting petitioner to approach the civil court without considering the Original grievance that the Respondent NO. i and 6 raising illegal construction on petitioner plot No.1 in SY.No.536 of Btrimaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, l-lanamakonda District without obtaininiy permission under the guise of perrnission obtained on Sy.No.53B is illerlal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent NO 2 to 4 to take necessary action against the illegal constrL ction undertaking by the Respondent NO 5 and 6 on petitioner plot No.1 in SY.Nc.536 of Bhimaram village, Hasanparthy I\landal and also direct to remove the illet;al constructions raised on my plot. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Unler Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Resporrdent No.2 to 4 to Stop the illegal construction undertaking by the Respondents No.5 and 6 without obtaining permission c n petitioner plot No.1 in SY.No.536 of []himaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Hanamakonda District, pending disposal rrf the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.Y.L.N.CHARYULU t Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN A,ND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GREATER WARANGAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI S.GOUTHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : - The Court made t1e following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2684 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering his representation dated 23.09.2024 submitted to respondent No. l, who in tum forwarded the same to respondent No.2 fbr taking necessary action against issuance of intimation in File N o.R-2627 7 6 IGWMC/C I R-II1PP2024 dated 01.06. 2024. wherein the petitioner was directed to approach Civil Court regarding his grievance of unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in his plot bearing Plot No.l in Survey No.536 situated at Bhimaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Hanumakonda District, under the guise of permission obtained in Survey No.538, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice

2. Heard Mr. D.Y.L.N. Charyulu, leamed counsel tbr the petitioner, and Mr. Pasham Mohith, leamed standing counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, appearing fbr lespondent Nos.2 to 4. .-! 2 W ' No.2684 o12025 Da ed 16 06.2025

3. The tetitioner claints to be the owner of the property bearing Plot No. I in Survey No.536 situated ar Bheem rram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Hanumakonda District (erstwhile Warangal District), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing docurnent No. I I07 of 1990 dared 13.09.1990. It is submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are builders representinf] M/s. A.K. Clonstructions, approached the petitioner along with Mr. C'hidarala Purushottam and Mr. K. Saraiah fbr the purpose of :onstruction ol- flats. Thereafter, the peti:ioner entered into formal development agreement dated 03.07.202(). It is stated that Mr. Chidarala Purushoftam was the owner and possessor the Plot Nos.50 and -5 I in Survey No.538 and Mr. K. Sartiah was rhe owner and possessor of the Plot No.52 in Survey No.53g. The above lwo (2) persons along with the petitioner entered into developmen, agreement with respondent Nos.5 and ,i, and as per the terms c,f agreement, respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall obtain permission c,n the name of the petitioner and said two 2 ) persons

4. It is subnritted that the parties entered inrtr resistered development agrcement bearing document No.7l 7 o '' 2024 dated a W.P. No-2684 of 202) Darcd 26.0E.2025

09.01.2024. However, respondent Nos.5 and 6 mischievously obtained buitding permission from respondent No.2 vide Proc.No.3006131567lW541202l dated 16.05.2022 in their name in respect of the land in Survey No.538 instead of Mr. Chidarata Purushottam and Mr. K. Saraiah by deviating from the conditions of the development agreement. Further, they have obtained pennission for the land in Survey No.538 but not for the land in Survey No.536. The petitioner was under the impression that respondent Nos.5 and 6 may not commence construction in Survey No.536, however, they have started construction in the land of the petitioner in Survey No.536 without obtaining any permission In that connection, the petitioner submitted repreqentations to respondent Nos. I to 4 on 02.09.2024 and 23.09.2024. Respondent No. I having received representation dated 23.09.2024 forwarded the same to respondent No.2 vide Memo No. 14557/PLG.III 2024 dated 28.10.2024. Further, the petitioner has also submitted representation to the Director Town and Country Planning on

16.03.2024 for taking necessary action. In turn, they forwarded the 4 W I' \o.2684 ol1025 Dr.tcd 26 011.2025 same to r3spondent No.2 vide letter No.ROC|T /4t2024 dated 0s.t t.2024

5. It ir; submitted that respondent Nos.5 irnd 6 raised constructio'l in the properly of the petitioner by enc roaching road portion. V/ith an ill intention respondent No.3 iss red intpugned intimation rtated 03.06.2024 directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court 6- Learrred standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that there are no merits in this writ petition. -l-he dispute if any betw:en the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 a rd 6 is a civil dispute anc cannot be decided by respondent No.l.. On the complaint cf the petitioner, the Town planning aulhorities have conducted physical inspection over the subject property, and it u,as observed thrt construction is almost completed, anrl there is no road encroa,:hment and deviations to the sanctioned pian. In the approved plan, it is shown as "PLAN SHO\,VIN(i THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST, SECO}{I), 'THIRD. FOURTH & F'IFTH FI,OOR WITH STII I- FLOOR 5 W.P. No.26E4 of 2025 Dated 26.08.2025 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (APARTMENTS) BEAzuNG PLOT NO'S.I, 50, 51 8L 52 IN SURVEY NO.536 & 538, OF BHEEMARAM REVENUE VILLAGE, HASANPARTHY MANDAL, WARANGAL (U) DIST". It was shown in the plan that plot belongs to A. K. Constructions, represented by its rnanaging partners i.e., (i) Sri Dulam Karthik and (ii) Billa Ashok Reddy, and name o[ the owners is shown as (i) Chidurala Purushottam, (ii) Bairu Janardhan Reddy, (iii) Korra Saraiah

7. Leamed standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that name of the petitioner is shown as owner of the property in the building permit. Assuming that the petrltipner is not shown as the owner, at the most is a typographical error.

8. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner is not shown in the sanctioned plan filed (under Ex.P8) and it is mischief of respondent Nos.5 and 6

9. On perusal of the impugned intimation dated 03.06.2024, it appears that A.K. Constructions represented by respondent Nos.5 6 U' I'. No.l684 of 2025 I), rcti 26.08 2025 and 6 obtained building permission dated 16.05.20,1?, pursuant to the develoomenr agreement dated og.or.2024 with the peritioner, Mr. Korra Saraiah and Mr. chidurara purushotta* firr construction of Stilt + five (5) upper floors. That on the cornplaint of the petitioner, rhe site was physically inspected and it,vas confirmed that the corstruction was completed without any dcviation to the sanctioned plan. Further, there was no road encroacltncnt and the petitioner u'as directed to approach competent Civil (,ourt.

10. lt is rrot the case of the learned counsel fbr the petitioner that share in the built up area was not given to hirr as per the development agreement. Ihe only grievance of tht petitioner is that buildin,3 pennission does not show his name. Acbording to leamed starrding counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. it was a typographical error

11. In the light of the above submissions and categorical finding given by rr:spondent No.2 in the impugned intination dated

03.06.2024 that there is no deviation to the sanctioned plan, there are not merits in the writ petition. / 7 W.P. No.2684 of 2025 Dated 26.08.2025

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To \ Court for the State of Telang ana at Hyderabad. I '1 . Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBA D VELOPMENT, High 2. One CC to SRI D.Y.L.N CHARYULU, Advocate loPUCl 3 One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GREATER WARANGAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to SRI S.GOUTHAM, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD CoPies SA PVL Ny I I 18 StP z$fi \\',\\* \ /i< oe rr ,t-t \::-::'.- --r i/'/ .// t / -,u' HIGH COURT DATE D :2 610812025 ORDER WP.No.2684 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 q \g