An appellate bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge order which rejected a request to stop unauthorized construction made by a respondent in an ongoing civil partition suit while the cause was sub judice.
Writ appeal dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications closed.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APP EAL NO.3860 F 2019
writ Appeal under clause 1s of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 0210412019 passed in the w.p.No. 6925 of 2019, on the fire of the High court.
Between:
Muzammil lihqn, S/o. Late M.A.Basith (hqn, Aged about 34 years, Occ Service, Ri./o. H.No.12-2-37l\l3lA, Sriram NagarColony,"Mehdipatnam, nyOeriniO,iSl-'
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 oF 20,t9
Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased (i) To direct the 1st Respondent to forthwith consider the representations made by the Appellant/writ Petitioner dated 19.01.20'19 and 19.02.201g (ii) To direct the 4th Respondent not to proceed with any or all further constructions forthwith in the subject property in Plot No.1o/Part, 11lpatl, 12tpart, l3,,Part, i4lpart and lSlpart situated in Survey No.28 Upperpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRt N. ASHWANI KUMAR
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR, S.C. FOR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. SEETHARAMA AVADHANI
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE TXIE CHIEFJUSTICESA CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEA.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.N 0.386 of 20 19
JUDGMENT: tPerrh€Ho 'ble the Chi€fJusnce Sarrslchandlasho.ma,,
The present writ appeal is arising outof the order dated 02.O4.2019 passed in W.P.No.6925 of2O19.
The contention of the appeilant is thatrespondent No'4is proceeding ahead with the unauthorised construction andthe authorities are not doing anything in the matter.
The learned Single Judge inparagraphs 4, 5, 6and 7has passed the following order:-
'4. Hauing regard to the respectiue submissions, there isrto dtspute that the petitioner has filed sutt forpartitton withrespect to the subject propertA and there ruas also an allegation that the4t' respotldent is making construction'. As can be seen fromthe plaint document filed bV tle petitioner, in all faimess, the4threspondent is the 2"d defendant in the suit and that the ctuil CourThaving considered tlrc mateiat on record hadpassed the aforesoidintennt order wtth a further direction to list the matter on 28.01.2019. In those circun$tances, as the petitioner had alreadg inuoked the juisdiction of the ciuit Couri uith respect to the atleged constnictions. made bg the 4th respondent and that the disputed gueslions as to u.lhether the petitioner ha,s ight ouer the subject propertV or not and whether the sate deed alLeged to haue been obtained bA the 4th respondent is uatid or not, can be dectded by the ciuit Court after fullJledged tial. Euen assuming that the 40, respondent is making construcrio/rs without obtaining sanctioned plan, since the praAer in the writ petition as well as the injunction petition, as sought for bV the petittoner, would inctdentaLly for the same lssue, the petitioner has remedy to seek amendment of the relief tn the plaint.
Meaning thereby, the fact remains that a Civil Suit i.e,, O.S.No.23 of 2019 is pending between the paities on the file of tho learned XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar for partition and in that suit, an application has been preferred for grant of injunction alleging that respondent No.4 is making illegal constructions. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and a liberty has also been granted to amend the Civil Suit. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. C.V.MALLIKARJUNAVARMA DEPUTYREGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 21 One One CC CC to to SriSri N.N. Ashwani Kumar, Ainoi xrrar.,S.C. Advocate for GHMC tOPt]Ql [OPUCI ^. ^- J One CC toSri V. SeetharamaAvadhani, Advocate (OPUU) 4 Two CDCoPies. One SpareCoPY N/P \ V
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 011112021
JUDGMENT
WA.No.386 of 2019
<br>c sTA r€
*l'-
q
a
z
o,J 1s No'l202l
.t
-t
OE spal c
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
<br><br>>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge dismissal of a writ petition directing authorities to halt unauthorized construction when a civil suit for partition and injunction is pen
Whether the construction by the respondent can be challenged in a writ writ petition when the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court.
Whether the writ petition filed against the order dismissing the civil suit petitioner's relief should be allowed.
Muzammil liqn
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
The Zonal Commissioner
Town Planner
Mohd Sardar Ali
Satish Chandra Sharma
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
