Polepally Naroth.am Reddy v. without valid reasons as bad

Judgment

1. The State of Telanoana, Tup by .its principal Secretary Administration and Urb5n oevero-6meii, nrin"riii'353ltanar, Hyder il|"",,,oJ:f fi ,H,il3?'r?l#T,f lfi slcorporation, m",.r&Y,iiyBl;,r?"ater waransal lVlunicipal corporation, waransal, 4. The Kakativa Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman Rep. by its Commissioner Municipal abad. "-'"''lrr! '|\vl Warangal, Warangal Urban Dibtrrit.- t 't#"tl'$,ff 3s:%'do"?"?l3l's#,Ll',s,1,€?:HluiJ""f ig8,,',1,3;fi ll; ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the respondent No. 2 herein in issuing endorsement in proceedings Roc. No. Ho/G1/E-1003 751 2019_20 Dated. 0811212020 rejecting the petitioners apprication dated. o3to6t2o2o for cancellation of the buirding permission issued to the 5th respondent vide permit No 3006/ 1346sW4gt2o'rB dated 1st11t2o1} for construction of Buirding on the ,.i land in Sy.No.573 and 581 situated at Waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District without conducting any hearing and without valid reasons as bad, arbitrary, illegal and u nconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the building permission issued to the Sth respondent vide Permit No. 3006/134654//4912018 dated. 1511112018 for construction of Building on the land in sy.No.573 and 581 situated at waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 suspend the operation of the building permission issued by the 2nd respondent vide Permit No 3006/1 3465t W49t2018 daled 1511112018 infavour of the 5th respondent for construction of Building on the land in Sy. No.573 and 581 situated at Waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. IA 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 suspend all impugned municipal building permissions (vide permit No 3006/134654/V49t2018 dated 1511112018 and also vide Permit No. 0272tBPt300612023 dated 19-12-2023) pending disposal of the Writ petition and direct consequently the Respondent No.2 to dismantle the illegal constructions made with violation of the orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.NAROTHAM REDDY [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAIG, SC FOR KUDA Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI MUMMINENI SRINIVASA RAO :.:. I { ( I I WRIT PE TITION NO: 11 283 0F 2020 Between: il,?Ifl "J'i,{,,Ei[fi,r;*'4"*,ff to,iBLX],lfi :fl f,i#s::,ft :?;,[}?;,,1;,1?urr, ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 Jhe State of Telangana, Bqp OV.+r.prl Secretary, [\4unrcrpal Administration Department Secreta"riat euitdingil nyoiiaoa? "*'' '"' Kakatiya Urban Develooment Authority, Rep by its Vice Charrman Warangal, Waragnal District P N_arglhg.m Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy Aged 49 years. Occ. Business R/o. H No. 2- 1 0-873/1, Sri'Venkateswara cot6nytuoeiii."n-i namt<onoi, wirrg nri' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, orders or Directions more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the 2rrd respondent issuing show cause notice dated 29.06.2020 vide Roc No.c1lLRS/S49.2012t400 by directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity in the petitioner house property Prot No. 5 and 4 part in sy No.573 (ord) 58.1 (new) of waddepaily viilage earlier granted construction permission by the GWMC vide permit No. 3006113465M49/2018 dated 1s.11.2018 after obtaining the expranation from the earlier show cause notice dated 04.09.2019 without disposing the earrier showing notice, present show cause notice issued with the pressure of the unofficial respondent is highry iilegar, arbitrary and against the principres of natural Justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia by setting aside the show cause notice dated 29 _06.2020 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner as per the permit No. 3006i 13465A//49/20.18 dated 15.11.2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 2nd respondent not to interfere with the construction actrvity of the petitioner house as per the Permit No. 3006/'134654/V4912O18 dated 15.'l '1 .2018 granted by the GWIVIC by suspending the impugned show cause notice Roc No C'1ILRS/549/2012l4OO dated 29.06.2020, pending disposal of the main writ petition. I t Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Cpunsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAIG, SC FOR KUDA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER : n1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRITPE TITION Nos.233 88 AND 11283 0F 2020 COMMON ORDER: i Since these two writ petitions relate, to the dispute conceming the same property and the parties are common, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. No.23388 of 2 020: This writ petition is frled by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, in issuing the endorsement in RoC.No.HO/G I lE- 1 0037 5 / 20 I 9-20 dared OB. I 2.2020 rej ecting his application dated 03.06.2020 hled for cancellation of building permission issued to respondent No.5 vide permit No.3006/134651W49/2015 dated 15.1 1.2018 for construction of building in the land in Survey Nos.573 and 581 situated at Waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District, without conducting any hearing and without recording valid reasons, as being illegal and arbitrary. .1/ 1\ 2

2. Heard Mr. P. Narotham Reddy, petitioner - Party-In-Person, Mr. Pasham Mohith, leamed standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Mirza Saifullah Baig, leamed standing counsel for respondent No.4, and Mr. Mummineni Srinivasa Rao, leamed I counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record. 3 The petitioner - Party-In-Person, submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plots admeasuring 783 square yards and 300 square yards, total admeasuring 1083 square ln Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581/2(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.8143 of 2011 dated I l.ll.2Ol1 and 8589 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011 from the previous owner Mr' Kasubojula Sambaiah S/o. Rajaiah.

4. It is submitted that originally, Mr. Pingiti Ranadheer Reddy S/o. Vijaypal Reddy was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Survey No.573 and 581(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, which is his ancestral property. That one Mrs. Anumula Kommala had purchased the 3 land admeasuring Ac.0-36 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new) from Mr. P. Ranadheer Reddy; the father of vendor of the petitioner, Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas from Mrs. Anumula.Kommala under simple sale deed dated 14.08.1980. Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah executed registered will deed bearing document No. 1 of 2006 dated,21.03.2006 in favour of his son, Mr. K. Sambaiah. Thereby, Mr. Ka'sabojula Sambaiah became absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 58l(new). When there was interference by respondenr Nos.2 and 4 with the land in Survey No.573 (old) 581/2 (new) for the purpose of laying road, Mr. K. Sambaiah filed W.p. No.28753 of 200g, which is disposed of, by the order dated 29.12.200g directing respondents therein not to interfere with the said land without following due process of law. It is submitted that subsequently respondent Nos.2 and 4 conducted field enquiry and confirmed that there is no master plan and proposal for laying of the road in the said land. I I I l I I I 4 ,.j :t

5. It is submitted that having verified the title, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1083 square yards under aforesaid two (2) sale deeds from Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah' The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 having obtained sale deed bearing document No. 7758 of2004 dated 12.08.2004 in respect of the land admeasuring 140 square yards in Survey No.581 (new) and 573 (old) from Dr. H. Suresh Clement through his AGPA Mr. R. Sammaiah, has fabricated the sale deed by showing wrong measurements. [t is contended that link documents of respondent No.5 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2004. In fact, there is no forty (40) feet road as shown in the documents and it is at a distance of seventy (70) feet away from the said plo! it is thus submitted by the petitioner that basing on the false documents respondent No.5 obtained LRS proceedings vzde No.LRSlcll549l20l2l308 dated 22.05-2018. The plot of respondent No.5 was regularized by the Municipal authorities without conducting physical inspection and verifring his title. l I I I a,

6. It is submitted that subsequently respondent No.5 obtained 5 building permission vide perrnit No.3 006/1 346 5 lW 49 /20 lg dated,

15.11.2018 for construction of residential building. When respondent No.5 tried to dig pits by encroaching-the portion of the petitioner's plot, he submitted representation dated 25.04.2019 to respondent No.4 requesting them to cancel the LRS proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.5. When respondent No.4 issued show-cause notice dated 29.06.2020 to respondent No.5, he approached this Court by filing W.p. No.1l2g3 of 2020, wherein interim order dated 27.07.2020 was passed by this Court suspending the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2020 and respondent No.5 was permitted to proceed with the construction as long as the permission granted in his favour dated 15. I I .201 g is valid and subsisting.

7. It is further stated that on the application of the petitioner dated 03.06.2020 submitted to respondent No.2 requesting to cancel the building permission issued to respondent No.5, impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020 was issued. There was no enquiry conducted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the 'r l?:: 6 wrong boundaries and measurements shown by respondent No'5 in his sale deeds. Several documents have been filed by the petitioner to prove that respondent No.5 has misrepresented before respondent No.2 and obtained building permission based on forged and fabricated documents. Thus, building permission of respondent No.5 ought to have been cancelled under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 (for short 'Municipalities Act 20 l9').

8. Leamed standing counsel for the GWMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted that there is title/boundary dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.200 of 2012. The dispute between them cannot be decided by respondent No.2. On being satisfied with the prima facie title of respondent No.5, building permission was granted. Recently, the Municipal Corporation came to know that the petitioner has withdrawn the above stit vide order dated

18.11.2016.

9. Leamed counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that title - dispute/boundary cannot be decided by the Municipal Corporation l i l ,l I l t I 1 :r I 7 a) The petitioner having withdrawn the suit in O.S. No.200 of 2012 filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction cannot be permitted to pursue this writ petition. The scope of the writ petition is Iimited and title issues cannot be decided.

10. The petitioner - party-In-person submitted that building permission was granted toi respondent No.5 on the basis of fabricated title documents fumished by him. When the fraud played by respondent No.5 was brought to the notice of respondent No.2 by him, respondent No.2 ought to have conducted detailed enquiry. The detailed representation submitted by the petitioner and documents furnished by him were not considered and impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020 was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. 1 1 . The impugned endorsement darcd A8.12.2020 reads as under: "With reference to your Application cited, it is to inform you that the Building Permission was granted to Sri T.Lingamurthy S/o. Bhadraiah vide permit no.30061 13465/W 49 /2018, dt. I 5- I I -201 8 for construction of Building in Sy. No. 577 & 581 of Waddepally (v), situated opposite to Forest Office, Subedari Main Road, I{anamakonda on satisffing his prima facie title over the I 8 (' site under reference and basing on the valid site approval issued by the Competent authorities i'e., LRS Approval issued by the KUDA vide Proc. No.LRS/C11549/20121308' Dt:22-05-2018. Whereas you are requesting for cancellation ol the Building Permission on the basis of the ownership aspects of the site under reference, which does not come undcr purview of this olfice and is to be decided by the competent Civil Court. Further, it is to inform you that the Hon'ble Fligh Court, Hyderabad vide its order dt. 16-09-2020 in W.P. No. 1566312020 have ordered the Respondent Corporation not to interlere with the construction work. In view oi the above, your objection petition is hereby rejected and you are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to redress grievance regarding ownership."

12. The petitioner referred to boundaries of respondent No'5 in his representation and also relied on Ex.P11, which is rough sketch plan showing the boundaries and their measurements ofthe subject property. It is contended that Ex.Pll Plan clearly shows that respondent No.5 has tampered title documents and the boundaries and measurements. Had reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, then the alteration of 9 1 boundaries/measurements and misrepresentation made by respondent No.5 would have been properly explained by him.

13. Leamed counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that Ex.p11 was not part of the record or the representation submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2.

14. Leamed standing counsel for the GWMC submitted that the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation is govemed by the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, wherein, Section 176(9) empowers the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, to revoke the building permission if it is found that it was obtained by making false statement or misrepresentation of any material facts or violation of rules.

15. In the opinion of this Court, the issue raised by the petitioner with reference to change of boundaries/measurements and obtainlng of building permission and LRS for the plot of respondent No.5 by misrepreseniation were not considered in detail by respondent No.2 in the impugned endorsement dated

08.12.2020. Moreover, the petitioner is relying on Ex.Pl l sketch i I l0 r' plan to suppod his case that respondent No'5 has tampered the boundaries and measurements of his plot' Ex'Pl1 \'as not part of the record in the impugned endorsement' Thus, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to respondent No.2 for de novo enquiry.

16. In view of the above submissions, without entering into the merits of the case, on the sole point of violation of principles of natural justice, endorsement issued by respondent No'2 in Roc.No.HO/G llE-lOO375l2O19-20 dated 08j22020 is set aside' Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct de novo enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent No'5 and all other concemed,/interested persons, and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to them. lt is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with regard to the title of the petitioner and respondent No.5 over the subject propefiy, and respondent No.2 shall pass orders without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Further, status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the subj ect property till conclusion of enquiry by respondent No.2. This entire exercise l I 1 i I i I I I I i l1 I shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.

17. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. W.P. No.l1283 of 2O20: l8 This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing show-cause notice vide Roc.No.C I /LRSI 549 /2ll2l 400 dated 29.06.2020 directing him to stop the construction in the property bearing Plot No.5 and 4 (part) in Survey No.573 (old) and 581 (new) of Waddepally Village despite permission granted v ide permit No.3006/ I 346 5 /W 46120 lB dated 15.11.2018, as being illegal and arbitrary.

19. As building construction has been completed in the subject property, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petltlon.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. i l I t I i ! I I I ! i I t2 f As a sequel thereto, misce[laneous applications, pending if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed' I/TRUE COPYI/ SD,.M. NAGAMANI NT REGISTRAR AS cTlo ER To, 1 2 3

4. 5 6 7 B I n d U r b a n D eve ro p m e nt' 3 ll?JJi; t%X.."f,", :?:ffi , y$ff t'i:ii1'J8l.3: " The Commissioner' Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation ' Warangal' Warangat Urban Distrlct' The City Planner' Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation' Warangal' i^:'l:::':,,,i'""1'' *'*''a Urban Deveropment Authoritv' warangar' Warangal Urban Dtstrtcr' One CC to SRI IvlUMtvlANENl SRINIVASA RAO' Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI P'NAROTHAM REDDY' [PARTY lN PERSON] One CC to SRI MIRZA SAIFULLAH BAIG' SC FOR KUDA IOPUCI . One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHITH' SC FOR GWMC IOPUCI ,RBAN DEV' Hrsh court ror the state or +Hff;i"r,",i5.?#'"i"t'+?MN

10.Two CD Copies BSR BS YY I ! I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0110912025 CC TODAY /. t' ' : '.; -:.\-+-- ,'r :,', ir.,\\ r ! iEP 2[5 s,i . ir|" tri11.g:ll' l', COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.23388 and 11283 of 2020 DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \a ud'a g\".