High Court · 2025

4. Sri.Ravi Kumar Badghaiya, S/o.Mehethar Lal Age. Major, Rl/o. H.No. 4-8513, Theegalaguttapally Village Karimnagar Mandal and District. ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of 2nd & 3rd Respondents on the construction under taken by the 4th Respondent at Plot No.694 in Sy.No.233/E basing upon the permission dt. 0810112024 in bearing permit No.361107/KARll0053l24, dt.O8lo112024 granted in respect of the Plot bearing No.749 for the 4th Respondent as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Article 19(1) & 300-,4 of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the Provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 as well the TS-bPASS Act, 12t2O2O unconstitutional, allowing the unauthorized construction under taken by the 4th Respondent which amounting to unauthorized construction in the plot No.694 and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to t;rke immediate action against the construction in progress at the aforementicned property forthwith and consequently to demolish construction made at plot |Jo.694. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the construction undertaken by the 4th respondent from further proceeding with construction in Plot No.694 in Sy.No.233/E situated at Karthikeya Nagar, Teegala Gutta Pally village, Karimnagar Mandal and Municipal corporation & District basing upon the permission dt:o\-ol-2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER JI ffi,r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN WRIT PETITION No' 3884 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd and 3'd respondents' 2 Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.694, admeasuring 200 Sq'yards' Survey No.233lE situated at Karthikeya Nagaf' Teegalaguttapally Village, Karimnagar District' on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No'652 of 1995 dated l8.l2.lgg5. He is in possession of the said properfy. 4'h respondent is making construction over the said property. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that 4ft respondent has obtained permission from 2nd respondent - Karimnagar Municipal Corporation Karimnagar District' rep' by its Commissioner, vide building permit order dated og.ol.2024. The said construction of 4th respondent is illegal .r/- d-- I 2 KL, J i.P.No.3a64 of 2025 and unauthorised. Therefore, petitioner has submitted representation dated 20.01.2025 to 2nd respondent with a request to take action against 4th respondent. Despile receiving and acknowledging the said representation, 2n,r respondent did not act upon the same. Therefore, aggrieved by the said inaction of 2nd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. In the writ affidavit and also representation dated

20.01 .2025, petitioner alleged that 4th respondent is nraking construction in the aforesaid plot belonging to him and 4th respondent has obtained building permit order dated

08.01.2024 from 2"d respondent under TG-bpASS ,{ct, 2020, by way ofself-certification and self-declaration. perusal ofthe photographs filed by petitioner would reveal that 4th respondent is proceeding with the construction as per building permit order dated 08.01 .2024. Thus, the said facts would reveal that there are disputes between petitioner and 4'h respondent with regard to title over the subject property. However, 2nd respondent will consider only three aspects viz., I i I I 3 K.L. J W.P.No.3aa4 ot2Ors 1) misrepresentation/ suppression of facts; 2) falsestatement, if any, made by 4e respondent while obtaining building permit order dated 09.0r..2024 and 3) construction in deviation to the building permit order dated 0g.01.2024. However, 2nd respondent cannot consider and adjudicat e interse disputes befween petitioner and 4rh respondent. It is the civil Court which is having power to adjudicate the same. Therefore, petitioner has to approach the civil Court and establish his right over the subject propefy. Then, he has to approach 2'd respondent with request to implement order/judgment, if any, passed by the competent civil Court. It is not the case of petitioner that 46 respondent has obtained building permit order dated 0g.0r.2024 by way of misrepresentation of facts and is proceeding with construction in deviation to the said building permit order.

4. In the light of the above, this Writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and obtain order against 4,h respondent and thereafter, he t , a'! 4 K!, J w I'.',1o.3884 of 2025 shall approach 2"d respondent seeking implementation of the said order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, strall stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// L I SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD liNT REGISTRAR I ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI, Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfor.theStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP fl' t ,---r-*l I Ill HIGH COURT DATED: 1'110212025 I I I l ORDER WP.No.3884 of 2025 1 IIE SIA () I 11 APl] 2025 a t o€srparc I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (c ,' \ ---]- lln1">