Dismissed

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers v. M/s. Vigna Farms

Telangana HC22 Apr 2021WA/54/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ appeals preferring against an order dismissing underlying petitions. The Court held the impugned order dismissing petitions and directing a land survey was sustainable. It directed the Assistant Director to conduct the survey.

What did the court decide?

All writ appeals dismissed. 1. Direction to Assistant Director to conduct land survey within 7 days and complete it by 08.05.2021. 2. Parties to bear equal survey expenses.

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL Nos.52 , 53, 54.65.66 and 69 o12021

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 52 OF 202't

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause^'15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Order dated 0110212021 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No.955 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers, Rept. By its Managing^partner K.Ganqadhara Rao, Aged about: 46 yrs, Occ. Busrness, R/o.H.No.B-7-168/i, SaiNilayam, HAltolony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶11

AND

¶12

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶13

'1 . M/s. Balaji Agro Farms, Rep. by Smt. Saila.ia Dhanekula, Situated at plot no.7g, Sangeeth Nagar, Somajiguda, Hyderabad^: 82 (Bharath).

¶14

....,RespondenUPetitioner

¶15

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank

¶16

Bund, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

T.he State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipdl Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

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 operation of the orders dated 011021202i passed by the learned single Judge in 1.A..No.212021 in W.P.No.955/202't .

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt D.V. SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHARAO SANGHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. RAM REDDY

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDy, SC FOR GHMC

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:

¶27

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶28

WRIT APPEAL NO: 53 OF²⁰²¹

¶29

Writ Appeal under Clause¹⁵ of the Letters^{PatentAppeal preferred against order} dated 01lo2t2o21^passed in l.A,No.3^{of 2021 in w.P.No.17067of 2O2O, onthefileofthe} High Court.

¶30

Between:

¶31

lvl/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers,^{Rept- By its Managing Partner K.Gangadhara} Rao. Aoed a6out.46 vrs, Occ.^{Businbss,R/o.H.No.B-7-'168/1 , Sai Nilayam,} HAL Cdlony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶32

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶33

AND

¶34

Mohd. Ameer Ali, S/o.^{Late Waheed Ali, Aged about54 yrs,Occ. Agriculture,} 2. N/ohd. Yousuf Ali, S/o Late^{WaheedAli, Aged about. 49 yrs, Occ. Agriculture.} 3. S.K.Ameer, S/o. Late lmam Sahab,^{Agedabout.54yrs, Occ. Agriculture,} 4. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o. lmam Sahab,^{Aged about.44 yrs, Occ.Agriculture,} 5. Shaik Pasha, S/o. Late lmam Saha6,^{Aged about.39 yrs, Occ.Agriculture,} 6. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o. Lare^{Shaik lt4ohd,Aged about,54 yrs, Occ.Agriculture,} 7. Mohd. Shareef, S/o. Late Shaik^{Mohs, Aged about.54 yrs, Occ.Agriculture,} 8. Mohd. Khaseem, S/o. Late Shaik^{Mohd,Agedabout.49yrs, Occ. Agriculture'} 9. Mohd. Buran, S/o. Shaik Mohd,^{Aged about. 44 Yrs, Occ.Agriculture'} 10. R. Kalavathi, D/o. Late R. tr/allaiah,^{Aged about.59 yrs, Occ. Household,} '1 1. R. Kousalya, D/o. Late R. Mallaiah, Aged about. 54_yrs, Occ. Household, 12.Yeena, D/b. Late R. Mallaiah, Aged about.^{59 yrs, Occ.Household,}

¶35

(All the petitioners are reptd. by their Special Power of Attorney Holder, V. Rambkrisnna, S/o. V.Hari^{N'ivasRa6, Aged about.58 yrs, Fl/o. Flat No.202,} A.K. Enclave, Road No.3,^Ban.jara Hills,^Hyderabad).

¶36

...ResPondents/Petitioners

¶37

13.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation,Rep.by its Commissioner, Tank} Bund, Hyderabad.

¶38

14.The Assistant Director, Survey^{and Land Records' Ranga Reddy District.} 15.The State of Telangana,^{Rep.-by its Secretary,IvlunicipalAdministrationand} Urban Development Department,^{Secreteriat,Hyderabad.}

¶39

. Res^po n d e nts/Res^ponde nts

¶40

IANO: 1O F 021 Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} operation of the orders^{daied 01lo2t2o21 passed by the learned single Judgein} l.A.No,3/2021ⁱⁿ W.P.No.1^{7067 12020}

¶41

counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI D.V.SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL} FOR SRI. SHARAD^SANGHI

¶42

CounselfortheRespondentNos.ltol2:SRIVEDULAVENKATARAMANA' SENIOR COUNSEL^{FOR SRI D.B. CHAITANYA}

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.13: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKARREDDY'} SC FOR GHMC

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.14:AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶45

Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo.15:} GP FOR MUNiCIPAL^{ADMINISTRATIONAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶46

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 54OF²⁰²¹

¶47

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the LettersPatentAppeal preferred against the} order dated 01lo2l2o21^{in l.A.No.2 0',f 2021in w.P.No.13940l 2021 0n the file of the} High Court.

¶48

Between:

¶49

Ivl/s_ Aishwarva Builders and Developers,^{Rept.By its tvlanagingPartner K.Gangadhara} Rao Aoed atiout. 46 vrs, Occ. Business,^{R/o.H.No 8-7-168/1 , Sai Nilayam,} nAL' cdtonv, Old Bowenpally,^{Secunderabad' Hyderabad, Telangana'}

¶50

...AppellanURespondent^No.2

¶51

AND

¶52

1 l//s. Vi ona Farms. Rep. bv L. Veerabhadra^{Rao,Situated at 7-1-5618' Shyam} Karan Hoad, Ameerpdt, Hyderabad^{- 16 (Bharath).}

¶53

..... Res Ponde nUPetitione^r

¶54

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal corporation,Rep. by its commissioner, Tank} Bund. Hvderabad.

¶55

e. i[e AisislJni'Director,^{Survey and Land Records, Ranga ReddyDistrict'} 4. The state of Telangana,^{Rep. by its secretary, Municipal Administralron ano} Urnan Developmerit^{Departmeni, Secreteriat,Hyderabad '}

¶56

... ResPondents/ResPondents

¶57

IA NO :1 OF 2021

¶58

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to suspend the} operation of the orders^{datedo1lo2t2o21 passed by the learned single Judgein} 1.A.No.212021ⁱⁿ W.P.No.^{1 39412021.}

¶59

counset for the^{Appellant:sRl D.V.SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL} FOR SRI. SHARAD SANGHI

¶60

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.1: SRIS. RAM REDDY}

¶61

Counset for the Respondent^{No.2: SRISAMPATHPRABHAKARREDDY'}

¶62

SC FOR GHMC

¶63

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'3: AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶64

Counsel for the^{ResPondent No'4:}

¶65

GP FOR MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT}

¶66

WRIT APPEAL NO :65 OF²⁰²¹

¶67

writ Appeal under^{clause15 of the Letters Patentappeal preferred against the} order dated o1-02-2021^{passed in l.A.No.1 of 2o2o w.P.No.18180 ol 2020 on the file of} the High Court.

¶68

Between:

¶69

I//s Aishwarva Builders and Developers,^{Rept. By its [\rlanaging Partner K.Gangadhara} R;;. A;;aa5"ui: 46 vrs, occ^{Businbss,R/o-H.No 8-7-168/1, Sai Nilayam'} nAL'Cdtoi'rv, Old Bowenpally,^{Secunderabad'Hyderabad,Telangana'}

¶70

...AppellanUResPondent^No.2

¶71

¶72

AND

¶73

1 I,4/s. Vi s na Farms, Rep. by L. Veerabhadra Rao, Situated at 7-1-5618, Shyam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 16^(Bharath).

¶74

.....RespondenUPetitioner

¶75

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Build, Hyderabad.

¶76

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District.

¶77

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Deveiopment Department, Secreteriat, Hyderabad.

¶78

... Res ponde nts/Respondents

¶79

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶80

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dated 01 .02.2021^passed by the learned single Judge in l.A.No.1 /2020 in W.P.No.1 81 8012020.

¶81

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D.V. SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHARAD SANGHI

¶82

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI S. RAM REDDY

¶83

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶84

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶85

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:

¶86

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶87

WRIT APPEAL NO: 66 OF 2021

¶88

Writ Appeal under Clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the orderdated 0110212021 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P.No.1000 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶89

Between:

¶90

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers, Rept. By its Managing Partner K.Gangadhara Rao, Aged about: 46 yrs, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.8-7-168/'1 , Sai Nilayam, HAL Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶91

AND

¶92

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶93

Mohd. Ameer Ali, S/o. Late Waheed Ali, Aged about 54 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, 2. Mohd. Yousuf Ali, Late Waheed Ali, Aged about. 49 yrs, Occ. Agriculture. 3. S.K.Ameer, S/o. Late lmam Sahab, Aged about. 54 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, 4. Mohd. Yousuf, A,/o. lmam Sahab, Aged about. 44 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, A Shaik Pasha, S/o. Late lmam Sahab, Aged about.39 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, 6. Mohd. Yousuf, S/o. Lare Shaik tt/ohd, Aged about. 54 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, 7. Mohd. Shareef, S/o. Late Shaik [/ohs, Aged about.54 yrs, Occ. Agdculture, B. Mohd. Khaseem, S/o. Late Shaik Mohd, Aged about. 49 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, Mohd. Buran, S/o. Shaik Mohd, Aged about. 44 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture,

¶94

R. Kalavathi, D/o. Late R. Mallaiah, Aged about.59 yrs, Occ. Household,

¶95

R. Kousalya, D/o. Late R. Mallaiah, Aged about.54 yrs, Occ. Household, 12. Veena, D/o. Late R. Mallaiah, Aged about. 59 yrs, Occ. Household,

¶96

(All the petitioners are reptd. by their Special Power of Attorney Holder, V. Ramakrishna, S/o. V-Hari Nivas Rao, Aged about: 58 yrs, R7o. Flat No.202, A.K. Enclave, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad).

¶97

¶98

13.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Blind, Hyderabad.

¶99

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District.

¶100

15.The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secreteriat, Hyderabad.

¶101

...Respondents/Respondents

¶102

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶103

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 operation of the orders dated 01 .02.2021^passed by the learned single Judge in l.A.No.2/2021 in W.P.No.'1 00012021.

¶104

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D.V. SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHARAD SANGHI

¶105

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 12: SRI VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI D.B. CHAITANYA

¶106

Counsel for the Respondent No.13: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶107

Counsel for the Respondent No.14: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶108

Counsel for the Respondent No.'15:

¶109

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶110

WRIT APPEAL NO: 69 OF 2021

¶111

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal^preferred against the order dated 0110212021^passed in l.A.No.1 ol 2020 in W.P.No.19224 of 2020 on the file of the High Court.

¶112

Between:

¶113

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers, Rept. By its Managing Partner K.Gangadhara Rao, Aged about: 46 yrs, Occ. Business, Fl/o.H.No.8-7-168/1 , Sai Nilayam, HAL Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶114

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶115

AND

¶116

[//s. Balaji Agro Farms, Rep. by Smt. Sailaja Dhanekula, Situated at Plot no.78, Sangeeth Nagar, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 82^(Bharath).

¶117

.....RespondenUPetitioner

¶118

2, The Greater Hyderabad lt/lunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶119

The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secreteriat, Hyderabad.

¶120

... Responde nts/Res pondents

¶121

¶122

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶123

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 operation of the orders dated 01 .O2.2O21 passed by the learned single Judge in l.A.No. 1 /2020 in W.P.No.1 922412020.

¶124

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D.V. SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI, SHARAD SANGHI

¶125

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI S. RAM REDDY

¶126

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶127

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶128

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:

¶129

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶130

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶131

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶132

AND

¶133

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶134

WA.No.s 52,53,54, 65,66 and 69 of2O2l

¶135

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Si Justtce M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

¶136

Heard Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, Seni.or Counsel for Sri Sharad Sanghi, counsel for the appellants, Sri S.Ram Reddy, counsel flor 1"t respondent in WA.No.s 52, 54, 65 and 69 of 2027, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for Sri D.B.Chaitanya, counsel for respondents t to 12 in WA.No.S3 of 2021 and WA.No.66 of 2021 , Sri Harish, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC.

¶137

AII these Writ Appeals are filed against the Common Order dt.01 .O2.2O2L in WP.No.s 77067 of 2O2O, 18180 of 2O2O, 19224.of 2O2O, IA.No.2 of 2O2l in WP.NO.955 of 2021, IA.No.2 of 2O2l in WP.No.IOOO of 2O2l and IA.No.2 of 2O2l in WP.No.7394 of 2021.

¶138

In the said order, the learned Single Judge had noticed that there is a dispute about the localization between the appellants and the private respondents in relation to land in survey No.189/A and 189/AA of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

¶139

District, which is required to be resolved by a survey to be done through the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District.

¶140

The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the permission granted in favour of the appellants by the GHMC was made subject to a survey to be conducted by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records mentioning clearly that "if any contrarSr survey report is received at later stage, GHMC would revoke the permission as per rules", and that ends of justice would be met if such survey is directed to be done after giving notice to all the affected parties,

¶141

Since the respondents are apprehending that under the guise of the building permission, the appellant 1S likely to encroach on their land, after hearing the counsel at length, we are satislied that such localization of the land ciaimed by the appellants and the respective private respondents is desirable and necessa_ry to avoid complications in future for both sides and to give a quietus to the issue between the parties.

¶142

We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶143

Accordingly, ail the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶144

The Assistant Director of Survey ald Land^Records, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to give notice to the counsel on record for the respective parties i.e,, Sri Sharad Sanghi, counsel for appellants, Sri S.Ram Reddy, and Sri D.B.Chaitanya, counsel for private respondents in the Writ Appeals, within three days from today fixing the date of survey in the next seven days; al1^partiesare permitted to submit work memos to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District; and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District is directed to complete the survey by 08.05.2027. The said survey report along^with sketch map shall be placed before the learned Single Judge hearing the Writ Petitions out of which the impugned order has arisen, after serving a copy thereof to all the parties. Both parties shall bear equally the expenses for the survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Recor{s, Ranga Reddy District and deposit the same before the survey is commenced.

¶145

g. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions^pending, if

¶146

any, shal1 stand^closed.

¶147

SD/.C.V.MALLIKARJUNA^VARMA DEPUTY REGISTBAR L-/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶148

To, CHR	1. Z. 3. ;. 6. o. - 7. B. 9. ; tl	The Assistant^{Director, Surveya.ndLand Records, Ranga Reddy District'} OneCCto^{Sri SharadSanghi,Advocate.L()fulll} OneCCto Sri^{S. Ram Reddy' AdvocateLuruul}-. 6#ddi"^{sii sjnpitn-e-,aijnai"iryeo<iv-,scF9.RGHMC.[oPUC]} i;;ddti"ci^{i"i'n"re",e,HighCourtibrtheState ofTelangana at} Hvderabad.[OUT] i'i,i,"ctJt6'6F^{i6rMunicipal Administration and Urban Development'High} $;rif;;ti;Siateotietariganaat Hvderabad.[oUT] OneCCto^{Sri D.B. Chaitanya,Advocaleluruul} Thesection^{orficerwriiiiloi,:s;;i;ia;tiionHighcourtfor thestate of} Telanoana at^HYderabad Two CD^CoPies -'

HIGH COURT

DATED:22 t04t2021

COMMON JUDGMENT

WRIT APPEAL Nos.52, 53, 54,65,66 and 69 of2021

¶154

'i 'rte S T.q IC:
t
)q
Z
(-' 2 E APH 2021
\-
.l'
rk
\,<br>t-) a

¶155

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS

¶156

t/'

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers v. M/s. Vigna Farms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers v. M/s. Vigna Farms

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

Mr. v.Ravinder Rao Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax

M/s Sai Venkateshwara Industries Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Dr. H. Anuradha Vs H. Gangadhar

M/s. Ad Age Outdoor Advertising Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers Vs Mohd. Ameer Ali and 14 others

M/s. Aishwarya Builders and Developers Vs Mohd. Ameer Ali and 14 Others