Partly allowed

Sri Thota Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2019WP/2168/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging illegal construction was dismissed as a disputed title question is not maintainable under Article 226. Petitioner directed to approach civil court for title resolution. Petitioner permitted to raise objections in the pending building permission application.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to raise objections in the pending building permission application.

Sri Thota Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WP No.2168 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 in not restraining the respondents 6 and 7 from proceeding with the illegal construction over the house plot of the petitioner to an extent of 210 sq. yards in Sy.No.241/A situated at Shanagar village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District as being illegal, arbitrary and void and for issuance of appropriate consequential directions.

¶5

Facts briefly stated are:-the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house plot to an extent of 210 sq. yards in Sy.No.241/A situated at Shanagar village. That he was also the owner of land to extent of Ac.2-10 guntas in Sy.No.24l/A situated at Shanagar village. That to meet his family necessities, he made the part of land area into house plots and sold out to various persons by retaining 2 ¼ guntas of land in different locations. It seems the petitioner had entered into transactions in respect of the said land with other persons, the details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this writ petition.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the house plot to an extent of 210 sq. yards in Sy.No.241/A situated at Shanagar village, which the 6^th and 7^th respondents are also claiming to be owners in their own right. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 6^th and 7^th respondents are proceeding with illegal construction on

¶7

¶8

the said house plot without obtaining any permission from the respondent-authorities and the representation dated 17-12-2018 made by the petitioner in that behalf seeking to stop the illegal construction, did not yield any results, he is constrained to file this writ petition.

¶9

Counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th respondent-Gram Panchayat wherein it is stated that 6^th and 7^th respondent are making constructions on the house plot in question without having any construction permission from the Gram Panchayat and on noticing the same a notice dated 29-12-2018 was issued to them to stop the construction and when they put on deaf ears, two more notices were issued on 10-01-2019 and 13-02-2019. That the 7^th respondent submitted an application dated 2212-2018 seeking for permission for construction in the said plot, but even before the permission could be granted, they were proceeding with the construction activity. That the 7^th respondent also made online application on 27-08-2019 seeking permission and the same was rejected for want of layout and land conversion and for non-compliance of Rule 14 of Layout and Building Rules, issued in GO Ms.No.67, dated 26-02-

¶10

That the construction was stopped pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court.

¶11

Counter affidavit is filed by the 7^th respondent, on her behalf and also on behalf of 6^th respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner got land in Sy.No.241/A to an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas situated at Shanagar village, in partition, from his father by means of registered gift deed and according to the 7^th respondent, the petitioner, in turn for his

¶12

¶13

family necessities sold the entire land of Ac.2-10 guntas to various persons, the details of persons to whom the land was sold allegedly by the petitioner is furnished in the counter affidavit in a tabular form.

¶14

It is stated that by the 7^th respondent that the petitioner is not possessing any land muchless house plot to an extent of 210 sq. yards. That the 6^th respondent being owner of the subject house plot, executed a registered sale deed bearing document no.7160 of 2018, dated 26-102018 in favour of 7^th respondent and since then she (7^th respondent) became owner of the house plot in question. That she made an application dated 22-12-2018 in the prescribed format for grant of building permission by duly enclosing all the relevant documents, which

¶15

was received by the 5^th respondent on 28-12-2018 and made an endorsement to that effect. That the 5^th respondent neither rejected the application by raising objections nor granted the permission, therefore, in view of the deeming provision of Section 114 (3) of the Telangana Grampanchayat Act, 2018, the 7^th respondent proceeded with the construction by following the building regulations. That the petitioner pressurized the official respondents from granting permission to her for construction of the house. That pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, she has stopped the construction of the building which has come upto the level of pillars and laying of roof. That there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶18

It is to be seen that both the parties are claiming the property rights to the house plot in question. But, the 7^th respondent claims that she is in possession of the house plot and construction has come upto the level of laying pillars and roof. The averment that 7^th respondent has constructed house building upto the roof level is not controverted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. Coming to the grievance of the petitioner that 7^th respondent is making constructions without obtaining permission, it is to be examined by the 5^th respondent and take action in the light of claim of the 7^th respondent that she has proceeded with the construction activity by invoking the deeming provision under Section 114 (3) of the Telangana Grampanchayat Act, 2018. There seems to be title dispute between the parties with regard to the house plot in question, though they are closely related to each other. However, it is settled proposition of law that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

It is the case of the 7^th respondent that the application made by her on 22-12-2018 for grant of building permission is not yet disposed of till today, in the circumstances, suffice it direct the 5^th respondent to consider the application of the 7^th respondent for grant of building permission after considering the objections, if any, by the petitioner and pass orders thereon in accordance in with law. Interim orders granted

¶20

¶21

by this Court to continue till appropriate decision is taken by the 5^th

¶22

respondent on the application of the 7^th respondent. As regards the claim and counter claim to the title of the house plot in question by the contesting parties, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to redress his grievance, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions

¶23

if any pending shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

_____________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶25

Dated: 06-11-2019
NRG

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶28

WP No.2168 of 2019
//web//

¶29

Dated:06-11-2019

¶30

NRG

Sri Thota Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thota Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jkl Engineers and Consultants, Hyd Vs Sri Venkateswara Neuro and Super Speciality Hospitals Pvt. L

Gadapa Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Lakshmi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Chada Narasimha Reddy Vs The Government of India

Cheruku Kalyani, Suryapet Dist Vs Regional Manager, S.B.I., Secbad and Ano

Pamula Sangaiah, Vs The Government of India, represented by the Deputy