Smt. Bhagat Radha v. 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 a appropriate writ, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and directing the respondent no. 2 to conduct an enquiry as per sale deeds document no. 1222112019 and 122'|.120'19 dt 3010112019, consequently further issue direction to respondent No. 2 in issuing Lr no. G1/107B|MCM|2O2i dt 03/05/2025 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of Natural Justice and Art 21 and 300 A of constitution. lA 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 Respondent no 2 to consider the application dl 2810312025 and direct the respondent no. 2 to issue building permission for construction by considering the of sale deeds documents no. 1222112019 and 122') l?Oig dt 30/01/2019 pending of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDy, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CHINNA POCHAIA.I-l RAYAMALLA The Court made the following: ORDER w i I I i 1 E I ! ! t 1 ! i I i i j i ;-_l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE, OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IION'BLE SRI JUSTTCE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20009 OF 2025 Date: 11.11.2025 Bctween : Smt. Bhagat Radha AND 'f hc Statc of Telangana, Rep. by' its Principal Secretary, l\{ u nicipal Administration & Urban Developmcnt Department, Secreta riat, Bhurgula rama krish na Building' Hyderabad & 2 others. ORDER: .. Petitioner .. Ilcspondents I.l. Petitioner claims to be owner ol the house site bearing No.18-96/l and 18-96/3 in Survey No.43 1/u, Municipal t}lock No.t8, adnreasuring264.34 square yards and 126.02 square yards, situated at Medariwada, Mancherial Mandal and District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'), having purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing document No. 122 [ and 1222 of2019 dated 30.01.2019. Page 2 of6 I]\ RJ \t l'\o.2{1009 of2{l2i

1.2. It is submitted that there are dispLrt-,:; bctrvecn the Ilctitioner an(l respondent No.3 over the sub cct propcrtv 'fhe petitionel apptied lbr buiiding pennission cver lhe subject property. llor.,',ever, dLre to objection made by n srondent No.3, pcrmlsslon u,as not granted to the petitioner. ()rrcstioning the same, the pctitioner tlled tr/.P. No.270ll of 20:l rvhich was disposed oi' br thc' orcler clared 21 .09.2023 direc.i'rg respondent No.2 - Mancherial \,lunicipal Corporation to tak,: action on the pctitioner's ap;rlication datcd 08.09.2023. Horvevcr. as the order of this Court',\as not cornplied rvith, the petitioner is:;ued notice of contcmpl on ]0.05.2015. 'l'o avoid contempt casc, as an eyewash, application o1' the petitioner was rejected by t re Intimation l.r. No.Gli l07tl/MCM/2025 dated 05.06.2025 date<l r15.06.2025

2. Heartl Mr. D. lrochaiah, learned counsel li r the petitioner; Mr. Chinna l)ochaiah Rayamalla, learned counsel 1br respondent No.3; Mr. Putla Krishna Reddy, leamed Standirrg, Counsel for Mancherial Municipal Corporation - respondent Nc.ll; and perused the material on record. t Pagc 3 of6 BVR,.l wP \0-20009 of 201i 3 Lcamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that thele rs road cxisting on the eastem side of the subject prope(y There is no injunction order against the petitioner' Hence' application of the petitioner for construction of building ought to have considered by respondent No.2. .1. Learned counsel fbr respondent No'3 subrnitted that the petitioner has created two sale deeds that too registered sale deeds on her natne though she does not have any title over the subjcct plots adtneasuring 264.34 square yards and 126'02 square yards' The petitioner's representation dated 28'03 '2025 alleging that respondent No.3 has created fake document No'3204 of 20 i I showing road on the eastem side was duly considered by respondent No.2 under the Intimation Lr' No'G1/107844CM/2025 dated 03.05.2025. The documents submitted by the petitioner were duly verified and complaint of the petitioner was rejected'

5. Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, Ieamed Standing Counsel for Mancherial Municipal Corporation - respondent No'2' submitted that dispute between the petitioner and respondent No'3 with i i I I i I I i i i t t I I I I I l I i ! ; 1 I Page ,l of6 B\IR,,I \\'P \0.20009 of2025 regard to existence of road cannot be decided b1 r.espondent No.2. The parrics irave to approach civil Courl for a,ljudication of the dispute and thus thcre are no merits in the writ pe.it.ion. 6 'l'he record discloses that rcpresentation u,as submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2 alleging that respondent No.3 submitted l-ake document No.3204 of 20Il riared 23.ll.2ltl shou,ing 6 lce't road on the eastem side of resporrclent No.3,s plot and cannot object for gr.anting building pe.rr.rission to thc petitioner. The casc of the petitioner and respr,ndent No.3 was duly considercd by respondent No.2 under the lrLtimation dated 03'05'2025. It is evident frorn the said intimatior: that the staff of respondent No.2 inspccted thc site and found that tlere is a 6 feet dead end road to H.No.lg-96/2 belonging to rt:spondent No.3. The documcnt No. 1222 of 2019 of the petitionelvrrs verihed and it was found that on the eastern side of the ;rroperty of the petitioner it rvas shown as vendee,s land, wherea:r in document No.3204 of 2011 of respondent No.3 and his link document No'3340 o1' 2005, there is a 6 feet road on the errstem side of respondent No.3's plot. It was also noted that a civil suit in Page 5 of6 BVR.J WP No.20009 of2025 O.S. No.298 of 2022 is pending between the petitioner and I respondent No.3 instituted by respondent No.3. Thus, intimation dated 03.05.2025 was issued stating rhat respondent No.2 is not cornpetcnt to decide genuineness of document Nb.3204 of 201 I and titlc / ownership, and therefore, cannot issue building permission to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Coun dated 27.09.2023 in W.P. No.270ll of 2023, intimation datcd 5.6.2025 wds issued reporting that earlier intimation dated

03.05.2025 was issued by verifying documents of the petitioner and respondent No.3. .l'hus, it is clear that there is a serious dispute rvith regard to existence ol 6 feet dead end road abutting to the prope(y of respondent No.3 bearing II.No.18-96/2. While respondent No.3 claims that there is a road on the eastem side of his plot, the petitioner claims otherwise. These disputed questions ol title and boundary cannot be decided by respondent No.2 Thus, there are no rnerits in this writ petition.

7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission stage itself. However, Iiberty ls granted to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 for grant of building permission if any t'ag€ 6 of6 BVR..' 1\rP No.20009 0t2025 favourable orders are passed in her favour ir the pending suit between herself and respondent No.3 in O.S. No.2)g o12022 or the suit is finall), disposed of and dispute regarding :;listence of 6 fbet dead end road is finally decided. No order as to ( osts. o i I I I I I I I I I I I I t i As a sequel thereto, rniscellaneous app lications, if any, pending in the u,rit petition stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// Di. T.SRINIVASA REDDY $IJISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI, Advocate [()F'}UC] 2. One CC to SRI CHINNA POCHAIAH RAYATVALLA, Acvocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR ll3PL [OPUC] 4.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADIMNURBANDEV,HghCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies BSR M CC TODAY , \ ES T4 a'/l (! )' 1) J .L t! ,:" r.. r' . .: : I'.,i C :lt !' i .l-..,,r----. .,:.:' . :2., HIGH COURT DATED: 1711112025 ORDER WP.No.20009 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS V/ d oL)