Disposed

M Shoba v. State of Telanagna and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Nov 2021WP/18489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the municipal corporation's failure to act on a representation regarding an alleged illegal construction encroaching on a public road or private passage. The High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the corporation to investigate the nature of the passage and serve notice to parties.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent be directed to consider the representation and determine the nature of the passage, serving notice to the petitioner and 3rd respondent before proceeding further.

M Shoba Vs State of Telanagna and 2 others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR TI.IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 18489 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

M Shoba, W/o M. Narasimha Aged 48 years, occ. House Wife R/o H.No.2-5-88/1, Bharathnagar Uppal, Medchal- Malakajgiri District.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telanagna, Rep by its Principal Secretary (Municipal Admin) Secretariat Hyderabad

¶12

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, lts rep by the Deputy Commissioner Circle- ll Uppal, Medchal- Malakajgiri District

¶13

M Balaiah, S/o Late Yadiah Aged 60 Years, Occ. Retd Employee R/o 2-5-88,

¶14

Bharathnagar Uppal, Medchal- Malakajgiri District

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner daled 1710712021 with regard to illegally constriction raised by the 3rd Respondent without any Permission is illegally arbitrary and violative of^principles of natural^justice and Consequently the direct the 2nd respondent to stop the illegally construction raised by the 3rd Respondent on the 5 feet road on the Northern Side of the^{petitioner property.}

¶17

lA NO:^'l OF 2021

¶18

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 direct the 2nd respondent to stop the illegal construction raised by the 3rd Respondent on the property bearing 2-5-88, Bharathnagar Uppal, Medchal- Malakajgiri District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI B. SRIRAM KARTIK Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION^AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR^REDDY,

¶21

SC FOR GHMC

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G. SATYANARAYANA^YADAV

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

, ,C

¶25

THE HC'NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶26

![/RIT PETITION No. 18489 of 2O2L

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri B. Sriram Kartik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri G. Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶29

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2"a respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2021 wittr regard to illegal construction raised by the 3.d respondent without any permission, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

The 3.a respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that he is the owner of the house bearing No.S-Sg/A (New H.No.2-588/A) and he has purchased the said old house under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1019/200 I dated 07.02.2001 admeasuring 68 sq.yards (12,X 51). Since it is a old house and is in dilapidated condition and that the total extent is only 68 sq.yards, the 3"d respondent was under the impression that there is no need to obtain permission from the GHMC authorities. Therefore, he has constructed l"t and 2"d floors. On receipt of notice from this Court, the 3rd respondent came to know that he has to apply for building permission under TS-Bpass on paylng an amount of Rs. 1/_.

¶31

¶32

¶33

Thereafter, on 30.0g.2021, he has made an application before the lna respondent for construction of stilt for parking plus two uppsr floors' Accordingly, the 3d respondent herein has obtained certificate of registration for building construction dated 30.08.2021 andstarted construction ofground and 1"t floor.

¶34

Sri Sampath prabhakar Reddy, learned Stalding counsel on instructions would submit that the 2,d respondent has already taken action on the unauthorized construction made by the 3d respondent by demolishing the subject property partly.

¶35

Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 3,a respondent is making construction by encroaching the public road to an extent of 5 feet. According to Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri G. Satyanarayana yadav, learned counsel appearing for the 3,d respondent, it is a private passage and therefore, petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court. They would further contend that petitioner is own sister-in-law of respondent No.3 and she has intentionally suppressed the said fact in the writ affidavit. A perusal of writ affidavit would reveal that the petitioner did not disclose the said fact. Thus, there is suppression of fact by the petitioner.

¶36

Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner lvould submit that the said private passage was handedover to

(

GHMC long^{back' Even then' the 3'd respondentis making} construction^{by encroachingthe said private land'}

¶41

In view^{of the abovesaid submissions'this writ petition} is disposed^{of directingthe 2'd respondent to consider the} representation^{dated 17 .O7} '2021,^{if the said privatepassage} u'as handed over^{to GHMC and that respondentNo 3 is} making construction^{on the same, he shall take steps in} accordance with law by^{putting the petitionerand the 3'd} respondent on notice and by^{affording them an opportunityof} hearing. The 2"a respondent shall also consider^whether it^is private passage or public road before taking action. Till such exercise is completed, the 2nd respondent shall not proceed further. No costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

¶43

closed.

¶44

Sd/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE copytt 6)

¶45

To, sEcTtoN OFFTCER ' I?!"?:i:f"l secretary (Municipal Admin) state of reranasna, secrerariat rr' GreaterHvderabad Municiparcorporation, : Iffi&"Ifl,:Yf:pffi:::1:ff;iJsi?r. une CC to Sri B Sriranikartik,.Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two cCs to Gp for Municipat Aa;i;i:ilI";";;"urban Devetopment, :l!'jfiix!li$",T:If;^{BiJrH?g?R:tl$+i,"8,ifl} 8,i""#""'' G. one CC ro Sn Satvinirayaria V;";,Xidr:Jjbpuct 7. Two CD Cooies^' 8. One Spare bopy sm

A\x

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 5/1 1/2021

ORDER

WP.No.18489 of 2021

1HE S TA ,€.
o
).(t(
,J
0I il0v20p?
"d
',,,f,

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

.NA
A-{v

M Shoba v. State of Telanagna and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Shoba v. State of Telanagna and 2 others

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

Sri. Tunuguntla Venkata Ravi Krishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another

Dacha Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Veera Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Bothala Bapuraju Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

D.Ramachander and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others