Dismissed

Alladi Laxmaiah v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/12458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for removal of unauthorized construction at the petitioner's property. The High Court examined the petitioner's explanation of renovation versus new construction, title disputes, and observations of a physical inspection alleging new construction, and dismissed the petition. The Commissioner's notice was found lawful.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; proceedings stay lifted; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Alladi Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION N o. 12458 0 F 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Alladi Laxmaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ Business, Rt/o H.No.2-7-512, Excise. Colony, Hanamkonda, WarangSl Urban District, (Erstwhile Warangai District).

¶8

AND

¶9

State of Telangana, Rep.by ils Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secreiariat Buildings, Salfabid, Hyderabad

¶10

Greater Warangal lVunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its. Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal Urban District

¶11

The Deputy. . Commissioner, Kazipet Circle-ll, Greater Warangal lvlunicipal Corporation, Warangal Urban District. 4. The Assistanl. City Planner, Kazipet Circle-ll, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal Urban District

¶12

Akkenapalli .Rajasekhar, S/o. Krishnamurthy, Aged 59 years, R/o. H. No. g-40, Beside Venkateshwara Theatre, Market Roadl Thirumalagiri tvlunicipality and Itilandal, Suryapet 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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in passing the impugned Order styled as Notice vide E-Off. No. 206748/ClR-1112021 , dated 31-032021 , for removal of the structures at H.No.2-7-5'12, admeasuting 292.0 Sq. yards, situated at Central Excise Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District, without considering the Explanation, dated 0310312021 submitted by the petitioner, in a proper perspective, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and apart from being violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently set aside the proceedings vide E-Off. No.206748/ClR-1112021 , dated 3110312021 ,

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶16

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 grant

¶17

stay of all further^{procee jings pursuant to the orderstyled as Notice vide E-off. No.} 266748/ClR-ll/2021 ,^{dat}d 31-03-2021 issued by the 3rd respondert or behalf of the} 2nd respondent,^{pendin(disposal of the writ petition'}

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶19

Between:

¶20

Sri. Akkenapalli Rajasel^{har, S/o. Krrshnamurthy' Aged59 years, R/o H No} -8-40' Aesia; VJn[ateshw'ara^{heatre, Market Road,fhirumalagiriMunicipalityand Mandal,} Suryapet District'

¶21

...pETtrloNER/REspoNDENT^No.s

¶22

AND

¶23

1 . Alladi Laxmaiah,^{i i/o Narsaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ Business F/o H No 2-7-512'} eiii.- Colony, llanamkonda,^{WarangSlUrban District,(ErstwhileWarangal} District)

¶24

...RESpoNoENT/PETtrtoNER

¶25

The state of^{Telargana, Rep.byits Principalsecretary,Deqartmentof Ir/unicipal} - nOministration a rd Urban Oevelopment, Secretariat Br.rildings, Saifabad, Hvderabad

¶26

6ffii;iWarange^{MunicipalCorporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal,} Waranoal Urban )istrict

¶27

+. fne^- Otpuiy Cc nmissioner,^{KazipetCircle-ll, Greater V'/arangal Municipal} Corooration. War tnoal Urban^District.

¶28

S. itri Ali'stint⁽ ity^{Planner, Kazipet Circle-ll, Greater Warangal Municipal} Corporation, War rngal^{Urban District}

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT^{Nos' 1 to 4}

¶30

Petition under^S :ction^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{sugport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive} the Documents name I^{the orderpassedby the District collector RangaReddy} District dated 1}lo5l2c^{21 in proceedings No. H4l279O12021 and phc,tographsof the} structures as add itiona^documents.

¶31

Counsel for the^{Petitit ner: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA}

¶32

counsel for the^{Respr.ndent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶33

Counsel for the^{Resp,,ndent Nos.2to 4: M/s.PINGALI LAKSHMI'} S.C. FOR G.W.M.C.

¶34

Counsel for the^{Resp rndentNo.S: SRI MOHAN KAROOR}

¶35

The Court made the^{f rllowing:ORDER}

¶36

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶37

wRIT PETITION No.I2458 OF 2 021

¶38

OITDER:

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action ol respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned notice vide E-Off.No.206748/CIR-IIi2021, dated 3 I .03.202 I , for removal of the structures at H.No.2-7-5 I 2, admeasuring 292.0sq.yards, situated at Central Excise Colony, I [anumakonda. Warangal Urban District (tbr short, 'the subject house') without considering the explanation dated 03.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner, in a proper perspective, as illegal, and to set aside the same.

¶40

Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Pingali Lakshmi, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri K.Mohan, leamed counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Perused the record.

¶41

3. FACTSOFTHECASE

¶42

i) The petitioner claims that he is absolute owner and^peacefi"rl possessor of the subject house on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No. I 0274 of 20 | 7, dated 22.09.20^{| 7 .}

¶43

ii) During February, 2019, the 2nd respondent-Corporation, widened the road and constructed drainage in the front^ponion of^his house by demolishing the compound^wall and occupied^{to an extent of} 2Osq.yards due to which his house^{propertywas unshaped'}

¶44

iii) Therefore, lhe 2nd respondent has taken^{possessionof the said} 20sq.yards without following due^{procedurelaid down under law and} without paying any compensation for the same'

¶45

K!..t

¶46

Jt t' ,. t:Ji,\ a/ :t): I

¶47

iv) Due to said demolition, to straighten, the peritioner construcred compound wa I in front of his house and fixed a shuttnr where earlier a bed room ofhi ; house was existing but no new construclion.

¶48

v) The 5'h respondent, co-brother of the petitioner, who has got property in tt e same locality, out of differences with the petitioner regarding shar, s of the property, lodged a complaint wirh the respondenr Nos.2 and 3 ag rinst the petitioner.

¶49

vi) Bas Lng on the said complaint of the 5,h respondent, rhe 4rr, respondent hai issued show cause notice dued 02.03.202 I uncler Sections 178 a rd 180(l) of the Telangana Municipalities Act (for shor.t, 'the Act'), reqr esting the petitioner to submit explanation to produce the document relat ng to the construction.

¶50

vii) Thr petitioner herein has submitted explanation dated 03.03 .2021 stai ng that he has not commenced any ne\v construction but carried on only renovation works. Without considering the said reply, the 3'd respondent I as issued impugned notice dated 3r.03.202r directing the petitioner to rer love the said unauthorized construction/deviated portion.

¶51

viii) The refore, the writ petition.

¶52

4. CON] ENTI NS OF THE PETITI ONER

¶53

i) The 3'I respondent, without considering the explanation dated 03.03.2021 sub nitted by the petitioner to the notice dared 02.03.202 l. issued impugne I notice illegally.

¶54

ii) The 3^d respondent has not considered the contention or the petitioner that te has purchased the above said subjecr house under

¶55

¶56

KL,J W.P.No.l2458 of 2021

¶57

registered sale deed vide document^{bearingNo. 10274 of 2017 and he has} not made any new construction but^{only renovating the house.}

¶58

iii) Referring to Section^{178 and 180(1) oftheAct,learned counsel} for the petitioner would submit^{that the 3'd respondent does not have} power or^jurisdiction to issue the^{impugnednotice dated31.03'2021.}

¶59

iv) Even then the 3'd^{respondenthas issued the impugnednotice,} demolished the subject^{structurepartly.}

¶60

v) With the said submissions,^{he soughtto set asidethe impugned} notice dated 02.03.2021.

¶61

CONTENTIONS O^{F THE RESONDE NT NOs.2 TO 4}

¶62

i) The petitioner has^{started new constructionwithoutobtaining} perTnlsslon.

¶63

ii) The petitioner has also^{erectedshutters for the use of the subject} property, for commercial PurPose.

¶64

iii) The road mentioned^{by the petitioneris SOfeet wide Master} Plan road, which is^{pubticroad, and has been existingfor the last several} decades.'Ihe saicl^{fact also wouldrevealfrom the perusal ofthe sale deed} of the petitioner.

¶65

iv)ThepetitionerhasnotsubmitteddraftplanStatedtobeobtained by his vendol despite^{givingopportunity.}

¶66

v)Theofficialsoftherespondent-Corporationhaveinspectedthe subject house^{physically and observedthat the petitionerhas been} making new construction^{in addition to the existing old houseand also} extendedthebalconyover5OfeetwideMasterPlanroad,Therefore,the

¶67

-'--qand-

¶68

¶69

L;' t il /'\t) l:1i\ t)i 2t: l

¶70

notice dated 0'.13.2021 was issued requesting the pet tioner to submit explanation arc issued notice dated 31.03.2021 with a direction to remove the une rthorized construction and there is no irregularity in it.

¶71

vi) The 1 etitioner gave an under.taking that he himself remove rhe unauthorized c rnstruction and as such the corporation stopped further removal.

¶72

vii) The petitioner suppressed the said fhct in rhe presenr wrir petition.

¶73

viii) Wit r the said contentions, he sought.to cl jsrriss the prcsent wnt petltion

¶74

6. CON] ENTION SOFT HE 5.h RES PoNDEN'I'

¶75

i) The rriginal owners namely Smt. Gunda poolamrna and Smt'Akkannapi li venkatalakshmi, his morher, had jointLy purchased the property under r registered sale deed dated 12.05.1gg2 and constructed a house thereon i nd the petitioner herein has fraudulently got executed a sale deed with an intention to grab his share and had demorished the structures and s arted new construction without any permission illegally.

¶76

ii) The l'h respondent lodged a complaint with the respondenr authorities.

¶77

iii) The 1 etitioner got sale deed bearing documenr No. 10274 ol. 2017, d,ated 22.)5.2017 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Gunda Pavulamma @ I ulamma by impersonation, as seen from the clocument.

¶78

iv) In the said sale deed, it was falsely mentionecl that the nrother of the 5'h respon lent, joint owner died on 17.04.2013 and gor it issued on

¶79

¶80

KL,J lr. P.No.l24 58 of²⁰²¹

¶81

01.09.2017 and executed^{a will deed in favour of GundaPavulamma} stating that the mother^{of the 5th respondent was not madeany investment} in purchase ofthe ProPertY.

¶82

v) The date of death of^{the mother of the 5th respondentis wrongly} mentioned as 17.04.2013^{by fabricating death certificate from the office} of the Tahsildar,^Sircilla.

¶83

vi) On the complaint^{of the 5th respondent, a case in Cr'No'204of} 202 I lor the offences^{under Sections 420, 468 and 506 read with Section} 34 of IPC^{was registeredand the same is pending'}

¶84

vii) The 5th respondent^{and two othershave filed a suit} o.S.No. 1380^{of 202 I against the petitionerhereinand others for partition} and separate^{possession and also for permanentinjunction'Thesaid suit} is pending.

¶85

viii)Thus,thepetitionerhereinonthestrengthoftheabovesaid document obtained^{by him fraudulently making new construction by} demolishing the^{old structurewithout obtaining permission'}

¶86

ix) Therefore,^{the petitioneris not having right over the subject} property.

¶87

x)Withthesaidsubmissions,hesoughttodismissthepresentwrit petition.

¶88

FINDING SOF^{.I'}{E COUR'T}

¶89

The sale deed dated^{22.09.2017 executedby G'V' Pavulamma} @^{Pulamma in favour of the petitioner,it is specificallymentioned that} the said Pavulamma @^{Pulammais the absoluteowner'possessorand}

¶90

_'r--.--J-

¶91

¶92

KL...t l1/.1). No 1245B of 2()2 I

¶93

enjoyer of the residential house with open place bearing I{.No.2_7_5 l2 admeasuring 2)2sq.yards with RCC ground plinth area of 1560 Sq.ft. situated in Cer tral Excise Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal 'lown. She has claimed tl at the she has purchased the said prol)efty along with Akkanapilli vr nkatalaxmi under registered sare deed bearing Documenr No.2585 of 1982. She has constructed a house in the saicl open place. Municipal cor roration has allotted house number.. Her name was also mutated in the municipal records. It is further mentioned that the said Akkanapalli V:nkatalaxmi died intestate. The Tahsildar, Sircilra, has issued death v de certificate bearing No.F/320/2017, dated Ol .Og.2Olj. The said Akka rapalli venkatalaxmi executed sale deed in ravour of the said Pavulamr ra @ Pulamma stating that the said pavulamma @ Pulamma has g ven 50oZ share in the property without any investment.

¶94

Acco ding to the said sale deed, the said pavulamma @) Pulamma will ,e the owner after her demise. Thus, sairj pavr.rlamma @ Pulamma, has lerfected transferable rights over the sa jd property. The above stated far ts wourd reveal that the said pavuramma @ purarnma. the vendor of the petitioner, has purchased the sub.ject propefty under registered sale deed bearing document No.25g5 of l9g2 along with Akkanapalli V 'nkatalaxmi, the mother of the 5'r' respondent herein. There is menti< n about the death certificate and date or the death. The said facts are n< r in dispute.

¶95

Accor ling to the 5,h respondent, himself, his father and his daughter are hr ving 50yo of the right over the subject property. The

¶96

¶97

KL.,J lr. P.No. 12158 of 202 I

¶98

petitioner herein has obtained the above^{said sale deed by playingfraud} by way of impersonation^and a^{case in Cr.No'204 of 2021 for the} ot'fences under Sections^{420, 468 and 506 readwith Section 34 of IPC} against the petitioner herein,^{was registered.The 5th respondent has also} lodged a complaint dated^{25.02.2021 with the Revenue Divisional} Ofllcer ('the RDO'),^{specifically mentioningthat the petitionerherein} has obtained the death^{certificateby mentioning the wrong dateof death} of his mother and^{with an intentionto create shareof the5th respondent} over the subject^{propefty. The RDO, Sircilla,after due enquiry,canceled} the death said certificate.^{Despitethe specificcontentionof the5'h} respondent in the counter^{affidavit,the petitionerhereinhas not filed any} reply to the same adverting^{to the saidallegation.}

¶99

It is relevant to note^{that even in the counterfiled by the3'd} respondent, there is specific^{mention that the petitioner herein is making} fresh construction^{without obtainingnecessary permissionof the} respondent-corporation.^{Sincethe petitioner is repeatedly claimingthat} he is only renovating^{the old structure, the Town Planning Authorities of} the corporation^{have conductedphysical inspection of the subject} property and found that^{the petitionerhas been makingconstructionin} addition ro the existing^{old house extending the balcony over 5ofeet wide} against plan. The^{petitionerhas given an undertaking showing that he} rvill remove the unauthorized^{construction and stop construction. The} petitioner has suppressed^{the said lact. Despite the saidspecific} contentions in the counter affidavit^{Iiled by the 3'd respondent,the}

¶100

¶101

Kl.,,t ll'. P.N c.12458 ol 2021

¶102

petitioner herein has not filed^{any reply adverting to the said allegations} Even photograp^{Ls filed by the petitionerwouldreveal that there is fresh} construction. H,^{has erected a shutter.The said fact is admitted. The} photographs trlt d by the^{respondent-Corporation would also reveal that} the petitioner^,; making^{t'reshconstruction.Adrnittedly.a sLrit vide} O.S.No. 1380 o^{2021filed by the 5'h respondent,his lather and sister} against the p:titioner^{and others seeking paftitionandseparate} possession, is tending belore^the Vl^{Additional Junior CivilJudge.} Warangal. Th : death^{certificate bearing NoF i32012017,dated} 01.09.2017 iss,Led by^{the Tahsildar,Sircilla is cancelledby the RDO'} Sircilta vide^{pr)ceedingsNo.c257. Thus, there is cloud ovef the title ol} the subject^{pro )erty. The 5th respoudent; his father and sister are claiming} 50Yo of right t ver the subject^{property. The 3'd respondenthas issued} notice dated O:.03.2021^{directing the petitioner hereinto submit all the} documents. T re^{petitioner hereinhas submitted explanationdated} 03.03.2021 st Lting that he is^{onlyrenovatingthe house rvhichwas} damaged durir g road extension^{and drainage constructi()n.'fhus, the said} facts were co rsidered and^{the 3'd respondenthas isstredthe impugned} notice dated 31.03.2021 directing^{the petitioner to relnovethe} unauthorized constructiorVdeviated^{portion made by the petitioner'} Therefore,, act ording to this Court there^{is no illegalityin issuing the said} notice dated 31.03.2021^.

¶103

Vie.rred from any angle, the^{present Writ Petition is liable to be} dismissed.

¶104

¶105

KL,J

¶106

tr.P.No.12158 of 202 t

¶107

CoNCLT]SION

¶108

In the result, this Writ^petition is dismissed.

¶109

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶110

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶111

//TRUE COPY//

¶112

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR &

¶113

SECTION OFFICER

¶114

To, 1. One CC to Sri Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate [OPUC]

¶115

Two CCs to GP^f<ir Municipal^{Administration ahd Urban Development,High Court} for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. of Telangana at Hyderabad. Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶116

for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. of Telangana at Hyderabad. Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶117

1. One CC to M/s. Pingrli Lakshmi,^{S.C. for Grw i/ C (OPUC)}

¶118

One CC to Sri Mohan Karoor,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶119

Two CD Copies.

¶120

One Spare Copy.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212C21

ORDER

r*E s Ta. i
-,) +
{
2 0 ll!{ ?t22

¶127

WP.No.12458 o1 2021

¶128

DISMISSING TI. E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS"S

¶129

fia
uR

Alladi Laxmaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alladi Laxmaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I Shiva Kumar and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

J. Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Tungala Laxmi Raghava Vs State of Telangana

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs The State of Telangana

Md Omer Vs The State of Telangana

Soma Panduranga Vs The State of Telangana