Balaji Maruthi Rao 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 appropriate Writ, Order direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. - (a) To declare the action of the Respondent No.4 i.e. Town Planning Supervisor, Tellapur Municipality, Sangareddy District in threatening the petitioner that he would pull down the construction made by the petitioner in his Plot No. 629iA extent 350 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No. 32512 at Tellapur village' Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District) though he has constructed in accordance with the sanctioned Plan and as per Building Permission/ Permit granted in his favour vide Permit order vide No. I I I f s 135016/TELP/003412023 dl. 14-2-2022 even after the petitioner had submitted the explanation d1.25-2-2O25 to the Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality under Section 176(9) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 vide Lr.No.MCf fiPsl36l2025 dated 15-2-2025 alleging that he made construction by encroaching into the plot of the Respondent No.S is pending on the file of the Respondent No.2 for passing order is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 20'19, and (b) further direct the Respondents 2 and 4 not to take any coercive steps with regard to the construction made by the petitioner in his plot No. 629/4 extent 350 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No. 32512 at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District) in accordance with the sanctioned Plan and as per the Building Permission/Permit granted in his favour vide Permit order vide No. '135016ffELP1O03412O23 dt. 14-2-2022 before passing any orders passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality pursuant to the notice issued under Section 176(9) of Telangana Municipalities Act,20'19 vide t-r.No.MCTffPS/36/2025 dated 15-2-2025 by taking into consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25-2-2025. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondents 2 and 4 not to take any coercive steps with regard to the construction made by the petitioner in his plot No. 629/4 extent 350 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No. 32512 at Tellapur village, Ramachand rapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District) in accordance with the sanctioned Plan and as per the Building Permission/Permit granted in his favour vide Permit order vide No. 135016/TELP1003412023 dt. 14-2-2022 before passing any orders passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality pursuant to the notice issued under Section 176(9) of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 vide Lr.No.MCTffPS/36/2025 dated 15-2-2025 by taking into consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25'2-2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.ROHITH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : AG.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER ,/t // I I I I I : t' o THE TIICN,BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN \^'RlT PETITION No.6624 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, leamed Senior counsel representing Sri V.Rohith, leanred counsel for the petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4, learned Asst.Gort.Pleader for Revenue appearing for 3'd respondent and Sri T.S.Praveen Kurnar, leamed counscl appearing for 5'r'respondent.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No.629lA admeasuring 350 sq.yards in Sy.No.325l2 situated at Tellapur Vittage, Ramachandrapurarn Mandal, Sanga Reddy District on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing No. 15223 of 2007 dated 27.04.2007. The petitioncr has obtained building permit older dated 14.02.2022 for construction of ground * Stilt for parking and three upper floors. According to the petitioner, he has completed construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order. In proofofthe same, he has filed photographs.

3. Perusal olthe record would reveal that the petitioner herein has filed a suit O.S.No.482 of 2021 against the husband of the 5,r, respondent for perpetual ir.rjunction and leamed III Additional Junior Civil Judge, 1 Medak at Sanga Reddy, granted inrerim injunction. The said inrerim injunction is subsisting and said suit is pending.

4. 5th respondent has also filed a suit vide O.S.No. 644 of 2021 against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction. Learned principal Junior Civil Judge at Sanga Reddy, granted interim injunction. The said interim injunction is subsisting and said suit is pending. During pendency of the said suit, 5th respondent has submitted representation to 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction by encroaching into the land belongs to the 5'h respondent. Therefore, she has requested 2nd respondent to take action against the petitioner herein. On receipt of the said representation, 2nd respondent has issued notice dated 15.02.2025 under Section 17619 of Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 (for short, 'the Act') stating that the petitioner encroached into the neighbour's land by making construction of Stilt + three upper floors on misrepresentation of the facts. In the said notice, there is no mention as to the alleged m isrepresentation and suppression of the facts by the petitioner herein. 2nd respondent cannot consider the inter se disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent.

5. The aforesaid building permit order obtained by the petitioner is under TSbPASS Act, 2020,, by way of self-certification and self- declaration. Therefore, znd respondent has to consider I -, a, o J misrepresentation/suppression of facts, false statement made by the petitioner and deviation, if any, in construction to the building permit order. Except the said three issues, the 2nd respondent cannot consider any other aspects including title disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. l'he said aspects were specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the explanation dated 19.02.2025.

6. Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for 5e respondent, on instructions, would submit that the 5th respondent has also lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein with Kollur Police Station, who ir.r turn registered a case in Cr.No.84 of 2023 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447,427 and 506 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. The same was taken on file as C.C.No. l38l of 2024. The same is pending. '?. Sri 'l.S.Praveen Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for 5th respondent fairly submits that the 5'h respondent has not stated in the complaint that thc petitioner has obtained building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. However, he sought liberty to subrnit fresh representation with the 2nd respondent making r1 ,l specific allegation that the petitioncr obtained the aforesaid building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

6. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the 5th respondent has filed I.A.No.990 of 2023 in o.S.No.644 of 2021 seeking appointment of Advocate commissioner. The same was dismissed. Admittedly, 5th respondent has not filed any application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) olCpC alteging violation olrhe interirn order granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.644 of 2021.

9. In the light of the said discussion, this Courl is of the view that notice dated 15.02.2025 issued by 2nd respondent is in violation of the procedure laid down under Sections 17619 of the Act, 2019. The 2"d respondent cannot adjudicate inter se disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent with regard to subject property. Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, the impugned notice dated 15.02.2025 is liable to be ser aside and accordingly, it is set aside. t0. This writ petition is disposed of. However, liberty is granted ro 5th respondent to submit fresh representation to the 2nd respondent and file fresh writ petition if so advised. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. \ To Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. i/TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N OFFICER 2 1 4 5 Dept., Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad'. . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development . ihe iormltsioner, Tellapur Municipality, Sangareddy District' . Tne fansitOar Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District- . tne fo*n Planning Supervisor, Tellapur Municipality' Sangareddy District' . f*o Cc. to Gp rdR igvEruuE, High Court for the State of Telangana at rcs to.EP TbN MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High o 'ivo 7. One CC to SRI V ROHITH, Advocate IOPUCI g. One CC to SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] f. il" CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 10.Two CD CoPies Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUI Hyderabad [OUTI SA BS +p I l \ I F {, o k t it'tla S ( 1 I /'li,l Zf;- PA.iCH EO HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ORDER ^-' "j WP.No.6624 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 9 t i'