Petitioners challenging interference with house construction on allotted pattas. Court allowed liberty to apply for building permission but restrained construction pending such approval.
Petition disposed; liberty granted to apply for building permission; construction restrained pending permission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No.24815 of 2015
Between:
Smt. Sameera Begum, W/o. Zabi, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Gowthamnagar, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District & another
.. Petitioners
The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, at Hyderabad & 3 others
.. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.08.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24815 of 2015
ORDER:
According to the petitioners, they were allotted house site pattas in respect of Plot Nos.1 to 14, to an extent of 80 square yards each in Survey No.108, situated at Gowthamnagar, Nizamabad. Assignment Pattas were granted to them. The petitioners claim that they have earlier constructed temporary houses and they were also assigned Municipal Door bearing Nos. 6-22-563/C/1 and 6-22-563/C/4. They have been paying municipal tax regularly. According to the petitioners, the temporary houses earlier constructed got damaged and the petitioners intend to construct new thatched houses. The petitioners are in the process of strengthening the foundation for constructing thatched houses. At this stage, the municipal authorities are interfering and not allowing the petitioners to undertake the construction. Hence, this writ petition.
2. As seen from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have not applied for building permission. Whatever may be the nature of construction, if a person intends to make construction, it is mandatory to apply for building permission and without applying for building permission, no construction can be made. Though no material is filed in support of the contention that the respondent municipal authorities are interfering, in law they are entitled to interfere and stop any construction made without prior
permission. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be given liberty to apply for permission to construct houses in the subject properties.
3. Having regard to the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to apply for building permission and as and when such applications are submitted, the respondent Municipal Corporation shall consider and pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law. Till the building permission is granted, the petitioners shall not undertake any construction and the structures shall remain at the stage of foundation as is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 7th August, 2015
KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24815 of 2015
Date: 7th August, 2015
KL
Smt. Sameera Begum
The Government of Telangana
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
