Disposed

G.Madhuri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2021WP/10741/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, highest Court filed under Articles 226 and 151 CPC, federal it was to completely challenged the issuance of a shortfall letter by respondent No. 3 regarding the petitioner's plot. The Main counsel SC, the petitioners represented that the petitioner's status is that the respondent No. 3 is not obligated to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the tahsildar, as per the judgment of this Court in

What did the court decide?

The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and take action within six weeks.

G.Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE F TE LA N GA NA A T H YD ES;TfJi DO (special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WJ9ryE_SDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTV dN;*

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRI T PETI Tto N NO: 10741 0F 2021

¶7

G. Madhuri, W/o Late A,4adhukar Redgy, AgeO about 45 years, Occ. House Wife. flr"0",!,#3.o-r'1-3o2t45t4ti, -s;i- #'b;' Nffi]' t'rn1""ua Reddy Nasar.

¶8

AND

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

The state of relanoana. Rep by its principar secretary (M A u D), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabld.

¶11

2 Jl: 9realej^{HyderabadIr,4unicipat Corporatron. Rep by its Commissioner,}

¶12

r anKDuno Hoad, HVderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, GHIr,4C Kukatpally Zone, Circle No.26, Hyderabad 4 rne uo ector. Ir,4edc ha l-lva lkajg iri District. 5 The Tahasildar, Qutbullapur tr,/andal, Medchal-lr/atkajgiri District.

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondents no.3 in issuing Shortfall Letter vide Lr.No.3/C27l0250712021, dated 17103/2021 in respect of petitioner's Plot No.M-SA, admeasuring 300sq.yds, in Sy.No.329/4 and 329/5, situated at Mahadeva Puram Residential Project Phase lll,^{Gajularamaram} Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without considering^the specific representation dated 1510412021, as^{illegal, arbitrary,and in violation of} Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of^{lndia and also in violationof GHtvlC Act,} besides in violation of^principles of^{naturaljustice and consequentlydirectthe} respondents to accord building^{permission basing petitioners buildingapplication} dated 05/02/2021, vide file No.^{Lr. No.31C2710250712021in respectof petitioner'sPlot} No.M-5A, admeasuring 3oosq.yds,^{in sy.No.329/4 and 329/5, situatedat Mahadeva} Puram Residential Project-Phase^{lll, Gajularamaram Village, QuthubullapurMandal,} Ir/edch a l-tr/ alkajgiri District, by^setting .^{aside the Short Fall Lettervide} Lr.No.3lC27l025O712021 . dated^1710312021.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances slatedin the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High court maybe pleased to directthe} respondents to accord building^{permissionbasing petitioners buildingapplication} dated 05/02/2021,^{videfile No. Lr.No.3tC2710250712O21in respectof petitioner'sPlot} No.M-SA,admeasuring300sq.yds,inSy.No.329/4and32915'situatedat

¶17

Mahadeva Puram^{ResidentialProject-Phaselll,GajularamaramVillage,} Quthubullapur^{Ir/andal, Medchal-Malkaigiri District, by suspending the short Fall} Letter vide Lr.No.3lC27l025O7t2O21,^{dated17103/202'1 pending disposal of the above} writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{KATIKARAVINDER REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI CHATLA MADHU, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

i 1ll. i"loN'lil-l slll IUSIICI- A./\BlttSlitrK I(EDI)Y { ltll' PI l l IIO\ \o.1074] ot 2027

¶22

!)^ri !)^{L. rr:}

¶23

Il'ris n':'it pc.tition l5 filed challenging the actior-r of the rcspondents more pariicularly respot-rdcnt No.3 in issuing shortfall Lr. tter rrrrle L.r.N o.3 / C27 / 02507 / 2021, date d 17 .03.2021, in respect of the petitiorrer/s propertv bearing Plot No.M-SA, admeasuring 300 srlLr.r'c varcls, in Sy.Nos.j29 /4 e 329/5, sitr-rated at Gajularamaram \r i I lai;c', QLr thtru llapu r' lVIa ncl al, Medchal District.

¶24

Ilrt, c;tst oI Lhc pt,tiiiorrer is thai shc is LIte absoltrte or.r,ncr arrrJ fr()ssessor^{of tlrc sr-rbjtct} l',iot^{havillllpurchasetlthe same through} l(.rlist(.rerl sale tltL'tl d.tted lc).0E.19c15 ald ticr sinct' tlren, sht'is i:r f'(^{,ir r illT l'()\ii'\j()lt ,iltri ,,niIt il]r,ltl i)i tll(. -.ti|('} I hr, 1,1,1i1jIr11I,1 ,,,11 r'('rlLrl,u is(,!l l]tt, sriiri.,il irlot Lrrtr,lt,r i ar lLit iiegu]arizatiorr St ht:nre I,rr /r p rocecrl inU No. I I\5 / 74?,7 / 7 29 / 1 5 / NZ / 1' PS / HO / GHMC / 2008, cialrti 16.01.2009, by p,ayin., req,risite fee.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that when she approached rcsironclent No.3 with an intention to construct a residential house in tirir subject land with all relevar-rt clocuments and submitted apprlication clated 05,02.2021, the respondent No.3 has rejectecl the sanro bv issuinlr, sltortl',rll lctk-r rlatecl 17 03.2021 stating tl-rat as pcr' tlr,' .l,rriliiJtiL)r'l re(('i.,,,i ir.t,nr thr' lehsrlJlr'. Qr-rllt[.r.r]lapLrr' \l.rntl.r^I r irir^i1,11q,1 \1r.li,/3,r, 1() ll, .laloJ l.)i.0l.ltllS, thr, lan.l in SLtn t'., \os..329/ I to'10 oi'(,ajularanrarar-n Village is tlr-:atecl as Goverttnretrt

¶26

¶27

<br>

¶28

Land. The relevant paragraph in the impugned^{shortfall letter dated}

¶29

77 .0?.2021 reads as follon's:

¶30

"Tlrt' proltosals subttritted ltrl yotr ttt -Sy. Nos.32 9/4 t, 329/5 u tlLtt.fit:at i',ttt rt'tenvd .fronr l-ttltasrlfur, Qtttltl,trllrtpttr t\lLttt&rl. i'ilc lettcr No.ll/35/2018, d1.A5.01.2015, l,lrreitt, ttrtttntttd ns lttr Nrr/rnl Snllrrlrrr o.l Cnl uluraltLrrLtn r Villnge ni,aLlnl,lc ut llu' o.l.'ftcc llu' -Sy,No..129^{is rL:t'ar,le,lns'(;tiirtuiSrtltLtr' ((,ti'trtnutttl Intttl) tutLl} alsrr llrr' .\r/.No.-l2)/1 lo 1() o.l^(,a.jrtlrtrn trtntlr/ l/l11rr,r' lririr, 1,r'r' Iolt.lL,'tl LItLl, t' Sr'r ltrrrr l-l-r<sup>(r/ 5ii?ttll)-s r/ltr/ Iir.{/5/|l/tr) t'ttl r irl lLtrtlu'r^{ttt.lL,rtttr,l iLititl ttt sy.Nrr..)2:f'1 lLt ii) al l;ttltttLLutuutittuti} f"r/1rigr' r.. l1L'L'tt I rL'nItd tls Got'crIrttptII LLttul.'

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very sarre Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, who issued the aforesaid letter dated 05.01.2018 stating that the subiect land is treatecl as Government land, has recommended for de-notification of subject lancls rrir/c his Report clated 27.08.2005 by elaborately considering the issue; and that stating all those facts, petitioner maclc' a re;rrtsentation to lhc resfronrlent No.3 on 22.03.2021 ior. consirlt ratior.t oi the s.rnr,,

¶33

Sri Chatla N{ a c'll-r r-r, leamecl Stancling Counsel for Gl I\l(, submits that since tl-re lands are includec.l uncler the purvierv oi Section 22-A of the Act, after getting clarification from tl-re concerne.cl Tahsildar, the impugned order has been passed.

¶34

in this case it is to be seen that as contended by the learnecl counsel for petitioner, the respondent No.3 is not obligated to get any NOC from the Tahsildar as per the judgment rendered by tl-ris

¶35

(ltrr-rrt in Ilrldcrabarl Potterie s Prit ttte Litnitetl z'. Collectot,

¶36

llrtitrLtbrrd Di strict ttttd ttttotltert

¶37

Irr r,icr.r, oI tht' sanrt', tltt- tcsporrtlttrrt No.3^is tlircctetl^k'r corlsicler thc representation of^{the petitioncrdatecl 22.03.2021taking} irrto account the above iacts ar-rd^{circut-nstancesand takeactioll} accordingly witl-rir-r a periocl of^{six weeksfrom the date of receipt of a} copy of this order.

¶38

Accordingly, the rvrit petition^{is disposed of.}

¶39

The rniscellaneous Petitions^{perlding,ifany, shall stand}

¶40

clost'r1.^'fht'tt: shall^{I",c tto oltlcr as to ( osts}

¶41

' 1200t^{scc onLine AP 397;(2001) 3 ALD 600;(2001) 3 ALT2001}

¶42

SD/- B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶43

,TRUE COPY// G,,

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To, 1'ThePrincipalsecretary(MAUD),stateofTelangana,SecretariatBuildings' Hvderabad.

¶46

2 it; 6[;;tssioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, TankbundRoad,} Hvderabad.

¶47

i#;;;;irnt^{City Planner, GHMC, Kukatpallv Zone, Circle No 26' Hvderabad'}

¶48

The Collector, M6dchal-Malkalgiri^District.

¶49

s. rti" irniiildir,^{QutbullapurtviEndal,Medchal-Malkaigiri-District}

¶50

O"; Ctio^{Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy' Advocate[OPUCI} 7. Two CCs to Gp^{to|. rvrrn,cipliiorirlii"tionino lJrban Development,Highcourt} for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} [QUT] B. oil cCdsri cnutla"M"ohr,^{Sc for GHMC, Adv-ocate[OPUC]} f . i;; cci toe^{p for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

10.Two CD Copies

¶52

1 1. One Spare^CoPY SITI

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.10741 ot 2021

!l t{E S T4 Ir-
( o oc <br>oJ , z ,- .: a":/]r,
,J !' i
;r-"'

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

G.Madhuri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Madhuri 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Basheer Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sundeep Gupta Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nagma Fatima Vs The State of Telangana

D. Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

K.S.R.Srinivas Vs The Manikonda Municipality