Disposed

M/s R.C. Developers v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WP/12851/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

At the stage of admission, the High Court disposed of a writ petition filed regarding layout approval disputes. Without adjudicating merits, the court directed officials to consider pending objections and notify all parties before releasing the final layout.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to consider objections, notify all parties, provide hearing, and consider Respondent No. 6 objections before passing orders on layout approval.

M/s R.C. Developers Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY^{OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12851 0F²⁰²¹

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s R.C. Developers,^{(Partnership Firm RegistrationNo 52i2012), VillaNo-} .169, nr.fu En.fau.'Pvt. Limited,^{Wdrangal Ciiy,Representedby its Partner Mothe} Venu' Prasad Reddy, S/o^{Narsimha Reddy, Aged about} -11 .^V"-'1' R/o H. No.11-14_g6i 20i classic^{Tower, Kasibugga, warangal urban urstnct,I .s.}

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep.^{by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal} nOnrrnistration"anO UrOan bevelopmbnt^{Departm'ent,Secretariat,T.S.Hyderabad}

¶12

Kakativa Urban^{Development Authority, Representedby its Vice-chairman,} Hanamkonda, Warangal^{UrbanDistrict.}

¶13

3.TheVice-Chairman,KakatiyaUrbanDevelopmentAuthority'Hanamkonda' Warangal Urban^District.

¶14

The District Collector,^{WarangalUrban, Warangal Urban District}

¶15

5.TheRevenueDivisionalofficer,WarangalUrban,WarangalUrbanDistrict.

¶16

M/s Hilltop^{Developers,Rep. by its Managing^P-ltnersSri Onteddu Narasimha}

¶17

ffi;;;;'d-siirr,l. havihaeine'oov, H' N;.2:2-20t20,401, LaxmiSriSaiNivas' D.D. eolony, Bagh^{Amberpet, Hyderabad'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto .Lrr. appropriate writ,^{order or Directionmore particularlyone in the natureof} "n WritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionofRespondents2to4innotconsidering petitioner,s o bjectio ns/rep resentatio ns dated 05-03-2021^{and 15'03'2021 and further} taking urgent^{steps to grant layout} PgtTi::|o.l ,:n^{the basis of ProcgsNo} itq,zitDole dated^{28_09-i0ta and Rc. No. L/l845/2020 dated .07.2020 (signed on} oo-oz.zozo)issuedbythesthRespondentinrespectoflandsadmeasuringAc.5.l3 ilZ-guniit'Ac. 5-13'1/2^{guntas and Ac.5-13 1/2_guntasrespectively.situatedin} s;;t N;..^{flotAt1t1,p6iennand 12OtAt1t4of chintagattu village,Hasanparthy} r,,lrnorr oi warangal^{urban Districtwithout rectifyingthe errors relatingto boundaries'} Ollng arbitrar!,^{illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles14 and 300-4 of the} ". con.iitriion of^{tnoia uno trrtf,".be pleasedto restrainthe 2nd and 3rd Respondents} from^{granting luyort p"r.itiion pursuantto R9} ^\o'^{11184512020dated 07 2020} i.ig""1^{;" o6-oz'-zOzo) ,no-Nnr-n Procgs No'LI4247Da18dated 28-09-2018till the} iiu-spona"ntr^{4 and 5 ,u.tiiv ir," irrors cieptinto the NALA proceedings issued by the} sir,^{"n"ipo"o"nt vide erotgi. No. Lt4247t2019dated28-09-2018in relationto} boundaries^{of the subject iriiorrv c-nsidering th,e objections/representationsdated} 05-03-2021^{and 15-03-Z0ii .rO,i'itiuO on binatf of ihe Petitioner and thereafter,} Lt* fry ort^{p"rmissionin accordance with law in the interestof justice'}

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay alt further proceedings incruding granting of rayout permission in respect of rands admeasuring Ac. 5-13 '1l2guntas, Ac.5-'13 1/2 guntas and Ac. 5-i3 1/2 guntas respectively situated in Survey Nos. 120lA/1/1, t2olAl1t2 and 12olN;t4 of chintagattu village, Hasanparthy Mandal of warangal Urban District pursuant to the NALA proceedings issued by the Sth Respondenl vide procgs. t'lo. ttqzlltzols q"l"q-_ 28-09-2018 pending consideration of obleitions/representation dated 05-03-2021 and 15-03-202r submitted on beharf of the p-etitioner.

¶25

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. RAVICHANDRAN

¶26

99y_"91_tgt^{tle Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMIN|STRAT|ON} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI M. AJAY KUMAR, SC FOR KUDA

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI R. SUSHANTH REDDY

¶30

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶31

'v'k'

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶33

WRIT PETITION No .12851 of 2O2l

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri M.Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Government Pleader lor Revenue for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and Sri il.St-tshanlh Rccldr,. lcirrnr:d counsel lor respondent No.6. With thcir conscnt, the Writ Petition is disposcd ol aL the stirq( ol rrrlnrrssion it sL: ll-.

¶36

ln this r'r'rit pt'1itron. Lh,.: pctitioncr rs n.reu n 11, aggrrevcd bt thc inii. LLorr oi' tl.rt rcsl)or(lellt Nos.2 to + in considcring the ob.juclions/rcl)rcscntations darcd 05.03.2O21 and 15.03.2021 sirl-,rritleC b} thc pctitionr:r'.

¶37

Learnt:d c<.runsel ior thc pr.:til.roner has stated thaL only aiicr rhc drsposal olW.P. No.20945 ol 2O2O by this Courl on 23.11.2O2O ancl filing of O.S. No. I7 oI 2O2O by the adjacent land owners,^to rvhir:h thc respondent No.6 hereirr is a party respondent,^the pctitioner herein came to know that there are several boundary discrepancies. Though the^petitioner entered into^dcvelopment agroe menl. as earlv as ort 31 .03.2018, due to^{the mistakeson the} part ol rhc ar-rthoritics in issuing NALA^{procr:cdings,the pelirioner} irncl its Dcvelopcr c<;ulcl not dcvelop thc^{subject Iand}

¶38

I)cr contrit, lhc' leitrnt:d^corttlscl lirr^{rcspottdctlt No bilas} Vr'hr:r.r'rt ntl,t' Opposeci lllc:^{Iralitrtainzrllilitl'ol the writ pctilioll on lilc} s,,rr-rlrncl that the rcsponclcnl^{No,o hzts ctrlcred into DeVek)pnlcllt} Aqrce mer-rt, ol u hich llle l)ctiLiol'lcr^{is arlsoottc ol Lhc p'rrtnerslJut'} t.l.ic prcse:tt $'rit pclition^{is liled onlv b.v- the pet itioner u'hercas lhc}

¶39

<br>

¶40

other partners have not joined and only to harass the respondent No.6, the present writ petition is filed.

¶41

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioner herein before releasing the draft,/ linal lay out in respect of the subject land, and pass necessary orders thereon, as per [aw. It is needlcss to mention that before passing any orders, the official respondents are obligated to put all the parties on notice, call for an explanation and give an opportunitv of hearing. Further, respondent No.6 rs free to file his objections to the representation made b1. rhc petitioner, and the same shall be taken into consideration by the authorities before passing the orders. The final orders likely to be passed by the official respolrdents shall be communicated to the parties.

¶42

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

SD/. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1, The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat,T.S. Hyderabad.

¶48

The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

¶49

The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

¶50

The District Collector, Warangal Urban, Warangal Urban District

¶51

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Urban, Warangal Urban District.

¶52

The Managing Partners, M/s Hilltop Developers, Sri Onteddu Narasimha Reddy and Sri M. Ravinder Reddy, H. No.2-2-20120,401 , Laxmi Sri Sai Nivas, D.D. Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶53

One CC to Sri V. Ravichandran, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

B. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

One CC to Sri M. Ajay Kumar, SC for KUDA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

10.One CC to Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

1 1 . Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶58

12.Two CD Copies {'.

=r_Er_

Sb---

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.12851 ot 2021

H E S 14
o
1 5 JUI,! 2021
a,',=a

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶69

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶70

WTHOUT COSTS sX*,' ,\X\

¶71

--.--_...-.-...-

M/s R.C. Developers v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s R.C. Developers 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

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Vivekananda Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

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