The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the : circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the Hph Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ of Mandamus or any other aBpropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not consklering the representation dt 7.1.2013 made by petitioner and in not taking any action with regard to cancellation of layout permissions granted in favour of fifth respondent by the first and second respondents vide LP No. 45 of 2005 in Proc.No.D2l1491/2005 dt 16.6.2006 and LP No. 15/20OS dt 16.6.2006 in Proc'No' D2l7g25t2OO4, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to consequently direct ',," the Respondents to forthwith consider the representation made by petitioner on I 7 .1 .ZO1g ancl cancel the above layout permissions granted in favour of fifth respondent Award costs l.A. NO: I OF 201 3(WP P. NO: 12366 2013) 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 issue interirn directions to the respondents to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dated: 07 -01-2013 and cancel the layout permissions granted in favour of fifth respondent by the first and second respondents vide L.P.No. 45 of 2005 in Proc.No.D2l149112O05' dated: 16-06- 2006 and L.P.No. 15/2005 dated: 16-06-2006 in Proc.No. D21792512OO4, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. A SANTHOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent l,lo. 5: SRI M. RAJAMALLA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I THE trION'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT oN NO.9930 oF 2013 ORDER: The present writ Petition is fileo to declare tlre action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in rrot consiclcring the representation dated O7.OL.2O13 macle by petitioner and in not taking any action for cancellation of layout permissions granted in ,] favour of respondent No.5 by respondent Nos.l and 2 uide L.P,No.4S of 2OO5 in Froc.No.D 2 / L4gt |2OOS dated L6.O6.2OO6 and L.P.irlo. 1:i/2005 ciated 16.06.2006 in Proc.No.D2 /7925 /2OO4 , as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the representation dated o7.o1.2o1,3 made by the petitioner and cancel the aforesaid layout permissions granted in favour of respondent No.S.

2. Pending the Writ Petition, respcndent No.5 died and his legal representatives ivere brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 10 ui.de orders dated 1O.2O.2025 in I.A.No. L of 2025. 2

3. sirrce the matter pertains to 2oL3 a,nd in the nature of -: disposat of t]:e writ petition, the matter is preceded without the pres,ence of the LRs.of the Sth respondent.

4. He,ard Mr.A.santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for 1"t respondent- Municip al Corporation.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of land in survey trlo. 25L /EEI, situated' at Kanteshwar Sivar, Nizamabad District and that respondent No.5, who is the owrrer of the adjacent land admeasu.ing Acres 6.2L guntas, with a mala fide' intention, to encroach the petitioner's land, had submitted two layout plans before .., respondr:nt Nos.1 and 2 for a total extent of Acres g.oo guntas, over and above the land possessed by him, and the said authorities without veri$ring the title documents and without ,:xamining ttre ownership aspect, have granted layout permissions in L.P.No.45/2oos/HRO/H1/c.No.5o2l os/HRO/H1 and L.P. No. 75 / 2ooslHRo/H t / 66 / 2oos/HRo. 6- Thr: petitioner furflrer contends that, though responde:nt No.S is having own.ership only to an extent of *- J Acs.6.21 gts., under the guise of sanctioned layouts, he encroached on to the petitioner's land. and is attempting to sell it to the prospective purchasers. Though thg petitioner submitted a representation before respondent Nos. L arrrd 2, requesting cancellation of the layouts gfanted in favour of respondent No.5, the said authorities have not taken any action thereon till date. Aggrieved by their inaction, ttre petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner subfni,ts that respondent No.1, being the statutory authorit5r, ouglrt to have examined the documents filed by respondent No.S *d: onl5r upon pima facie satisfaction regarding title, ouglrt to have granted permission for the layouts, but the respondent No.1, without verifying any documents, straightaway issued layout permissions in favour of respondent No.5, which is violative of due procedure contemplated under th; Municipal Corporation Act.

8. Per contra, t:ne learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.l submits that the after due satisfaction 4 regardin g prima facr'e titre anly rayout permission was granted in favour of respondent No.S. 9 He further contended that th" petitioner, who claims title to a portion of the layout, ought to have filed an appropriate civil suit before the competent civil court seeking declaration of tifle and recovery of possession and only i, the event of the comp.gtent court passing a decree in his favour, can challenge the Iayout which was duly sanctic,ned by the respondents.

10. I have taken note of the respective and perused the record. ':i'w submissions made 1 1' Upon due consideration of the rival contentions advance,l bv the petitioner and the rearned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1, this court is of the view that the matter involves disputed questions on factual aspects, which rerquire appreciation of evidence a'd such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition filed under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India. Thus, though the petitioner alleged to have made a detailed representation to the respondents, this court_canng_t _qirect the respondents . t I I i I 5 to pass appropriate orders, by considering the s€une, as tle same invol'res determination of civil rights {:etween the inter se parties. L2. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed relegating 1 the petitioner to approaclr the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. There shali be rro order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT /,TRUE COPY// To,

1. 2. 3.

5. 6. BSR One CC to SRl. A SANTHOSH KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRl. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Advocate-[OPUC] Two CCs to GP FORREVENUE High Court for the State <if Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI One CC to SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [OPUC] Two CD Copies BM (\f ."!. I ! sTAi€ 1 10 rEB 2$6 * * HIGH COURT DATED:241101202s ORDER WP.No.9930 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS @ n\u 1/ tu3\ d>t