Sri. Gella Lakshminarayana v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI VIVEK JAIN WRIT PETITION NO: 32021 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Gella Archana, Wo.G R/o. Flat No.303. Vamshi Hyderabad,TS Laxminarayana, aged 40 Residency, Road No 4, years, Occ House wife SBI Colony, Kothapet, AND 1 The State ol Telangana, Rep., by its Prl., Secretary, Department, Telangana Secretariat, at Hyderabad. T Municipal Administration a ...PETITIONER 7- 2 The Peeriadiquda t\rlunicipal Corporation, Rep" by its Commissroner' office at Medipally. Mddcnal Malkajgiri District.TS The Town Planning officer' Town Planning Sectron, Peeildiguda tvlunicipal coipoiJiion o?ii" 11 Med ipa lly, tr/ledchal tvlStxalgirr District,Ts 3 4 Sri. Salla Chandra Occ. Business R/o. H Hyderabad, TG Reddv. S/o Late S.Ram reddy, aged 47 years No. i-2-9, Street No.2. Kakathryanagar, Habsrguoa' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of'lndia praying that in the circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit'orderordirectionsmoreparticularlyonein the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actron of the respondents mQre particularly the respondents No 2 in issuing Notice No'3208/2021- G1(PMC)'dated.06llll2o24bycallingtheexplanationfromthepetitionerin respect of construction of building in plot No. 8-65 Western Part (East side)' admsg 332.92 mtrs or 394 5 Sq., Yards, situated at 15th Ward in Sy.' No 108- 1 16, Road No.5, Viharika Colony, Medipally Village and Mandal' Peerjadiguda Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS, on the basis of alleged complaint dated.2gllot2024submittedbytherespondentNo.4,withoulconsideringthe. speakingordervideNo.32QSt2a2l.Gl(PMC)dated.2ltO712021andbuilding permit No. TS/001305/2021,dated.16/03 12023 granted by the respondent No 2 for construction of (1) stilt + 5 Upper Floors as highly illegal' arbitrary' bad and contrarytotheprovisionsofTelanganaMunicipalitiesAct'20lgandviolationof Constrtutlonoflndiaandsetasidethesameandconsequentlydirectthe respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 and 3 and their sub-ordinates etc.,nottotakeanycoercivestepsincludingdemolitionagainstthepetitioner.s newlyconstructedbuildinginplotNo.8.65WesternPart(EaStSide),situatedat 15th ward in sy., No 108-1'16, Road No.5, Viharika colony, Medipally Village andMandal,PeerjadigudaMunicipality,Medchal-MalkaigiriDistrict'TS'inany manner forthwith. A NO: 1 OF 2024 PetitionunderSection,l51CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the aff idavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to <-+ suspend the impugned Notice No. 32081 2021-Gl (PMC),dated 0611112024 issued by the respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Re:;pondent No.4: SRI VIVEK JAIN WRIT PETITION NO: 34217 OF 2024 Between: Sri. Gella Laksh minarayana, S/o.G.Murali, aged 50 years, Occ.Business R/o. Flat No-303, Vamshi Residency, Road No.4. SBI Colony, Kothape!, Hyderabad, TS ...PETITIONER AND 't. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration Department. Telangana Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T S

2. The Peejadiguda Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, office al . Medipally, Medchal lVlalkaigiri District,TS

3. The Town Planning Officer, Town Planning Section, Peejadiguda Municipal Corporation office at Medipally, Medchal Malkajgiri District,TS

4. Sri. Salla Chandra R Occ.Business R/o H.N Hyderabad, TG o.1-2 S/o.Late S.Ram reddy, aged 72 years, 9, Street No.2, Kakathiyanagar, Habsiguda, ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents No.2 in issuing Notice No.3208/2021-G1 (PMC), dated.06-1 '1-2024 by calling the explanation from the petitioner for violation of order No3208l2021-G1l(PMC) dated.24-01-2022 cancelting the building permission No.TS/00130612021 ,dated.22-01-2022 granted for construction of 1 stilt + 4 upper floors in the plot No. 8-65 Western part (West side), admsg 332.92 mtrs or 394.5 Sq.. Yards, situated at 1Sth Ward in Sy., No 108-116 Road <-- , No.5, Viharika Colony, Medipally Village and tr/andal' Peeriadiguda Municipality' Medchal- Malkajgiri District, TS, on the basis of complaint daled '29-10-2024 alleged to be submitted by the respondent No 4' is in contrary to the findings in thespeakingordervideNo.32OSt2O2l'G1(PIMC)'dated20-07-202lashighly illegal,arbitrary,badandContrarytotheprovisionsofTelanganaMunicipalities Act,20lgandamountstoviolationofArticlesofConstitutionoflndiaand principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the respondent No 2 and 3 and therr sub-ordinates andstaffetc.,nottointerferewiththeongoingconstructioncarryingasperthe buildingpermissionNo.Ts/001306/2021dated.22.o1-2022'includinglhe demolition in any manner forthwith in any manner forthwith' IAN O:1 OF 2024 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 impugned Notice No 32OBl 2O21'G1 (PMC)' dated 06-11-2O24 issued by the respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such bther order or orders in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No'2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER o .I'HT] }ION'I}LE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSTIMI\N wRI't P[.'t'It'I ON Nos.34l9l 32021 znd 34217 ol' 2024 COMMON OITD}]R: Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appoars for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, leamed counsel appeal.s for Mr. VivekJain, learrred counsel for 4'r'respondent.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that one prem Kishore Nigam, S/o Hari pershad, claimed as the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.20 guntas in Survey Nos. ll3, I14, I l5 and 109 parr, out of total extent oI land admeasuring Acs.108.33 guntas covered by Survey Nos.l08 to ll0 and ll3 to l2l, situated,at Med.iaplly Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within the limits of Peerzadiguda Municipal Corporation. The same was allotted to his share from the joint family property. He has agreed to sell the said land in favour of 4,h respondent I I I 2 KL"i w P Nos.34l9)- 32021 and34217 ot2024 viz., S. Chandra Reddy, S/o late S. Ram Reddy. He has reccivcd cntire salo consideratiorl and delivered vacallt physical possession of the said extent of the land in favour of agreement holder.

3. The said Prem Kishore Nigam had executed a registered lrrevocable General Power of Attorney vide document No'536 of 1986 dated 16.07.1986 in favour of Sri B' Raja Linga Reddy, Sio B. Ram Reddy, to sign, admit and execute sale cleed or. deeds in favour of the said agreement holder, Sri S. Chandra Reddy, 4tl' respondent, in respect of tho schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.4'20 guntas in Suruey No.1l3, 114, 115 and 109 (part), situated at Medipally Village & Mandal, Uppal. Thereafter, the said Prem Kishore Nigam, represented by his GPA holder, B. Raja Linga Reddy has cxccuted unregistered Agreement Of Sale With Possession dated 04.02.2008, validated on 29.04.2019 vide File No. 1708/Eivall20lg, in favour of Sri Gella Laxminarayana, Sio Sri G. Murali, petitioner in Writ Petition Nos'34191 and 34217 of 2024, with regard to piece and parcel of parl of land o 3 KL,.I W.P.Nos.3419l.3202l and 342t7 ol 2o)4 tn plot Nos.B-64 and 8-65 in Survey Nos.l08 to I16, admeasuring 2134 Sq. yards, out of 5200 Sq. yar.ds, situated at Medipally Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddv District I I

4. The saitl Laxminarayana, petitioner in Writ petition Nos.34l9l an<l 34217 of 2024, has executed a registered deed of gift in favour of wife bearing document No.4976 of 2019 dated 13.0-5.20 l9 with regard to piece and parcel of open plot No.B-6-5, Westem Part in Sun,ey Nos. 108 to I 16, admeasuring 798 Sq. yards. Subsequently, he has subnritted an application, along with all relcvant documents. dated

15.04.2021 to )n'i respondent under TG-bPASS, by way of self-certificatiorr and self-dcclaration, lor constnrction of I Stilt + 4 Upper Floors. He has also obtainecl approval for building construction, on 22.01 .2022. According to hinr. he has completed the construction strictly in accordance with the said approvirl lirr building construction. There is no cleviation to the same. I 4 KL. J w P.Nos.34lgl, 3202 1 and 34217 oI 2024

5. Srnt. G. Archana, W/o Sri G. Laxminarayana, petitioner in Writ Petition No.32021 of 2024, has submitted an allplication on 15.03.202 I to 2"d rcspondent under TG-Bpass, by uptoading all the documents, by way of self-certificatior.r and self-declaration, for construction of I Stilt + 5 Upper Floors. She has also obtained approval for building construction on 16.03.2023. According to her, she has constructed the building strictly in accordance with the said approval for building collstruction.

6. On the complaints dated 30.06.?021 and 07.01.2021 filed by Sri S. Raja Linga Reddy and Sri S. Chandra Reddy, 4ttt respondent, respectively, vide proceedings dated

20.07.2021, 2''d respondent directed the parties to approach the competent civil Coufl for redressal of their grievance' However, there is no challenge to the said proceedings dated

20.07.2021 issued by 2n'i respondent. t

7. Thereafter, Znd respondent has sent email dated

23.08.2021 to petitioners stating that 4'r' respondent is claiming ,::, same property and petitioners had no perfect title over ,. 5 KL, J W.P-Nos.34l9l,3202t and 342 t2 of 2O2 the subject propefty. There are deviations with regard to the extent of the road when compared with the layout copy available. Therofore, 2'd respondent requested petitioners to revert back the flle from the applicants, login and give option to the Comrnissioner's login to revoke the above mentioneil files and to return the money which was paid by them. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.01.2022, 2^d respondent revoked the building permissions issued in favour of petitionerS. 'Iherealter, 2''d respondent has issued notice ilated

06.11.2024 to petitioners stating that despite revocation of the building permissions, they had proceeded with the construction in violation of orders dated24.0l .2022.

8. Challenging rhe said norice, dared 06.l1.2024, Smt. J. Archana and Sri J. Laxminarayana filed Writ petition Nos.3202l and 34217 of 2024 respectively. The said Laxminarayana also filed Writ petition No.34 l9l of 2024 challenging the revocation order dated 24.01 .2022.

9. Vide ord,er dated 05.12.2024 in Writ petition Nos.3419l and 34211 of 2024, this Court granted interim suspension of 6 KL, J W.P.Nos 34191, 32021 a^d 34217 ol2024 irnpugned revocation order dated 24.01 .2022 and notice dated

06.1.1.2024. Purlher, r,fu/c order datcd 09.12.2024, this Court granled iutcriur stay of all further proceedings pursuant to notice dated 06.1 | .2024.

10. Learned counsel fbr petitioners would submit that vide proceedings daled 20.07.2021, 2"d respondent advised both petitioners and unofficial respondent to approach the civil Court. The approval for building construction obtained by Smt. G.- Archana, petitioner in Writ Petition No.32021 of 2024,,is dated 16.03.2023 i.e., much after the revocation order dated 24.01 .2022.'fhe said revocation order dated24.0l'2022 is passed by 2"0 respondent without issuing any notice to petitioners to submit explanation and affording them an opporlunity of hearing. Therefore, the same is in violation of principles ofnaturaljustice and procedurc laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 201 9. I l. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit rhar vide proceedings dated

20.07.2021, 2''d responderlt advised both the parties to 7 Kl-' J W P.Nos.34l91,3202l and 34217 ot 2024 approach the civil Court. Thereafter, he has verilled the documents and passed order dated 24.01 .2022 revoking,the approvals for building construction obtained by petitioners. Subsequentlv, he has issued notice dated 06. I I .2024 to petitioners to explain whether they arc having any valid permission or Court order in their favour perrnitting to construct building and submit supporting documcnts. He has not even mentioned time limit to submit the sarnc. l.he said notice wds issued on the comptaints dated 07.01 .2021 and

30.06.2021 liled by 4'r' respondent and B. Raja Linga Recldy, respectively

12. Learlcd counsel for 4tr' respondent wor-rld contend tl.rat petitio,ers have obtained approvals for building co^struction by way of misrepresentation and suppression of lacts. They do not have title and possession over the subject property. Smt. G. Archana, petitioner in Writ petition No.3202 | of 2024 has executed a registered deed of gift bearing document No.4280 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021 in favour of her husbancl in respect of piece and parcel of part of plot No.B_6,5. Western I KL. J w.r'.Nos.34191,32021 and 34217 of 2O2a Part (towards westem side), I11 Survey Nos.108 to 116, admeasuring 394.5 Sq.Yards, out of 789 Sq. Yards, situated at Medipally Village and Mandal. She would furlher subrnit that despite revocation of the said approvals for building construction, petitioners proceeded with the construction. She ',r.,ould also submit that lrrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing document No.536 of 1986 dated 16.07-1986 was executed by Sri Prem Kishore Nigam in lavour of Sri B. Raja Linga Reddy, for a specific purpose to execute a registered favour of 4tt1 respondent, sale deed in S. Chandra Reddy. Thus, petitioners had no title and possession over the subject property and had obtained approvals for building construction by way of suppression and rnisrepresentation of facts and also by way of tbrged docu rnents.

13. The above stated rival submissions would reveal that there are disputes between petitioners and 4tl' respondent and Sri B. Raja Linga Reddy with regard to the subject propefty However, 2,d respondent cannot consider the said inter se 9 KL, J rv.P-Nos.34191,32021 .rid 31217 oI 2024 disputes. He will consider only primafacie title and possession of the applicants over the subject property. He will consider only three aspects viz., (l) suppression/misrepresentation of facts (2) false statement, if any, made by the applicant and (3) construction in deviation to the building perrnit order. He cannot consider/adjudicate title disputes.

14. Furtl.rer. there are complicated/serious questions ol.fact. Sri Prem Kishore Nigam, original owner ol the sub.ject property had executed the aforesaid registered Irrevocable General Porver of Attorney bearing document No.536 of l9g6 dated 16.07.1986, for a specific purpose i.e., to execute a registered sale deed in favour of4,h respondent, Sri S. Chandra Reddy. Instcad of executing registered sale deed in favour of 4'r' responclent, Sri B.Raja Linga Reddy had entered inro an unregistered Agreement of Sale with possession dated I

04.02.2008 in lavour of Sri Gella Laxminarayana, petitioner in W.P.Nos.34l9l and 34217 of 2024. The same was validated only on 29.04.2019 vide Flle No.l708lE/Vall20l9. Basing on the said agreernent, the said Laxminarayana has executed the \ I I 10 KL. J w.P.Nos.34l91,32021 and 34217 of 2024 aloresaid registered deed ofgift dated 13.05.2019, in favour of lris wifc, G. Archana, pctitiorrcr in W.P.No.32021 o1- 2024 Both of thern had obtained approvals for building construction and completed the construction. l-5. As discussed supra, there is no challenge to the proceedings dated 20.01 .2021 . 2"d respondent having advised both the parties to approach thc civil Coutt, cannot review his own decision and pass revocation order dated 24.01 .2022 rtrt the ground that petitioners have obtained buildirrg pertnissiott by way of misrepresentatiort of facts, that too, without even putting.petitioners on noticc and afibrding thctn att opporlunity ol- hearing. The same is in violation of principles of natural .justice and also procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20 I 9.

16. As discussed supra, there are disputes between thc petitioners, 4'h respondeut and Sri B. Raja Linga Reddy with regard to title over the subject property. The said disputes are civil in llature. 2nd respondent cannot consider the same. Tl.rere is misrepresentation/suppression of facts by petitioners. On 11 :KL,J w.P.NG.34l9t, 3202r dnd 342 lZ bl 2024 considemtion ol-the same, videproceedings dated 20.0j.2021 , 2"d respondent advised the parties to approach the civil Court. He cannot turn around and say that the petitioners have obtained the building permissions by way of misrepresenl ati on/suppression of facts.

17. In the light of the above, impugned revocation orcler dated 24.01 .2022 and notices dated 06.11.2024 issued by 2n<1 rcsponrlent are set aside. Liberty IS granted to 4'r' respondent to approach the competent civit Court and on obtaining orders. he shall approach 2nd respondent rvith request to inrplernent the same.

18. Accordingly, these three Writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed i/TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL .I DEPUTY REGISTRAR )\\r"r,o* oFFrcER \ To, 1 2 3 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department' Telangana Secretariat, at HYderabad. T S The Commissioner, Peeiadiguda Municipal Corporation' office at Medipally' Medchal I\/arkaigiri District. T.S The Town Planning Officer. Town Planning. Se9!io-1'.fge11diguda Municipal coip"irii6" om"" ai tvteoipatty, Medchal Malkajgiri District TS Cgl I

4. One CC to SRI BETHIVENKATESWARLU, Advocate IOPUG] 5 One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 7'TwoCCstoGPFoRIMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] \ B. Two CD Copies BSR BS \ HIGH COURT DATED: 27102t2025 I I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.3 4191, 32021 and 34217 OF 2024 /: ,--ii iti': s.i4 () 2 i FAn 216 ). c! n- + r)1;5;,,,., '..'; '-i_-.-::_..- DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \r \') \ -///