Allowed

Kandadi Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jul 2021WP/560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of four writ petitions filed by property owners challenging the GHMC's inaction in granting sanction plans and issuing notices under Section 452(2). The Court directed the authorities to consider building permission applications expeditively within eight weeks after hearing counsel.

What did the court decide?

The official respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of building permission on their own merits and pass necessary orders thereon as expeditiously as possibl

Kandadi Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS: 559 560 587 608 0F 2021

¶6

WP NO: 559 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

K, Ajay Babu, S/0, K. Subba Raju, Aged about- 47^years, Occ- Business,^R/o, Plot No,^'lB, Siri Sampada Residency. Jayabheri Enclave, Kompally, R.R District, Telangana Rep by GPA Holder, Syed Abdul tt/uqtadar Kaleem, S/o, Abdul Jaleel Syed, Aged about 5'1 years, Occ- Business, R/o, H.No, Flat No, 701,^B-1- 329 I Al 1 I 19, Kohesar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^IVIAUD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation,, Rep, by its, Commissioner, TankBund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep, By its, Assistant City Planner, Circle No, 20, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe pleased} to pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamusdeclaring the} action of the respondents for not considering and^{grantingthe sanctionplanin} respect of the^{petitionersproperty} i.e.. Commercial^{open plot in Sy' No' 83/'l} ' Admeasuring about 358 Sq. Yards, or equivalent to 299.28^{Sq. mts,out of totalarea} of 2322 Sq. yards or equivalent to 1941.19 Sq.^{mts situatedat RaidurgPanmaktha} Village, Serilingampally lvlandal. GHMC Circle,^{Ranga Reddy District,Telangana in} pursuance of the initial processing Fees paid by the^petitionet on 17-12-2020^vide Receipt No, GHX/C/O12279120-21, on 16- 11-2020,^{in File no- 21C2011550612020,} Chaltan No, 16519/20-2'1 , and consequently set a side^{the lmpugned Noticeissued} under section 452(2) at GHTVC Act^1955, to the^{petitioner vide File No} 83/UC/W.No.'104iClR-2OITPS/GHMC/2020, dal.ed-^{28-12-2020,and declare the} action of the respondents is totally illegal, arbitrary^. against^{the principlesof natural} justice and against the provisions of GHI/C act and Rules, against Law, and also violation of article 300-A of Constitution of lndia.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 respondents not to take any coercive steps against^{the petitioners propertyi.e.} Commercjal open plot in Sy.No.83/1 admeasuring about^{358 Sq. yards or equivalent} to 299.28 Sq. fi/eters out of total area of2322 Sq.^{Yards or equivalent to 1941.19Sq.} [\4eters, Situated at Raidurg Panmaktha Villager, Serilingampally^Mandal,GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in^{pursuance of the lmpugned Notice issued} under section452(2) ol GHM Act 1955 to the^{petitionervide File No.B3/UC/} W No l04lCir-2OITPS/GHlVCI 2020 dated 28-12-2020

¶18

WP NO: 560 OF 2021

¶19

Between:

¶20

Kandadi Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o, K. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, R/o, H. No, 2-2-107511514, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana Rep by GPA Holder, Syed Abdul Muqtad ar Kaleem, S/o, Abdul Jaleel Syed, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, Rt/o, H.No, Flat No, 701, 8-1-3291N1119, Kohesar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶21

...PETITIONER

¶22

AND

¶23

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, MAUD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶24

2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep, by its, Commissioner, TankBund, Hyderabad.

¶25

3 The Greater Hyderaqad Municipal Corporation, Rep, By its, Assistant City Planner, Circle No, 20, Hyderabad

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fjled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents for not considering and granting the sanction plan in respect of the petitioner's property i.e., open plot bearing in Sy, No, 83/1 , Admeasuring about 547 Yards, or equivalent io 457.29 Sq. mts, situated at Raidurg panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, in pursuance of the initial processing Fees paid by the petitioner on 1712-2020 vide Receipt No, GHMC/O1 2318120-21 , on 17 t11t2020, in Fite no 21C2011553812020, Challan No, 16585/20-21 , and consequenfly set a side the lmpugned Notice issued under section 452(2) GHMC Act 1955, and consequently set a side the lmpugned Notice issued under section a52Q) of GHMC Act 19SS, to the petitioner vide File No 83/UC/W.No.'104lClR-2o/TPS/cHMC/2020, dated 2811212020, and declare the action of the respondents is totally illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of GHMC act and Rules, against Law, and also violation of article 300-4 of Constitution of lndia.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶29

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 please direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petjtioner,s property i.e., open plot bearing in Sy, No, B3/1 , Admeasuring about 547 Sq. yards, or equivalent to 457.29 Sq. mts, situated at Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, in pursuance of the lmpugned Notice issued under section 452(2) of GHMC Act 1955, to the petitioner vide File No; B3/UCAil.No.104/CtR-20/TPS/GHMC/2020, dated 2812-2020 .

¶30

WP NO: 587 OF 2021

¶31

Between:

¶32

S. Ramarqiu V91qq, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju, Aged abou! 54 years, OccBusiness, R1o, H. No, 8-3-833[254, K-amtapuri'Coto-ny, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana. Rep by GPA Holder, Syed AbdJt MluqtadaiKaleem, S/o, Abdul Jaleei Syed, Aged aboul 51 years, Oic- Business, Fl/o, H.No, Fiat No, 7Oi, A-13291411119, Kohesar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶33

.,.PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, TVAUD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶36

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep' by its' Commissioner'} TankBund, HYderabad

¶37

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep' By its' AssistantCity} Planner, Circle^{No, 20, HYderabad}

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petilion under^{Article226 o1 the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{Statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe pleased} tot""puri r" order^{or orders one in the natureof writ of firlandamusdeclaringthe} action of the^{respondents ior not consideringand grantingthe sanctionplanin} iurp".t of the^{petitioners pioperty i.e Conrmercialopen plot in Sy'} -^No'B3/1' abbut 340 Sq.'yards,'or^{equivalent 1o 284.24Sq. mts,out of total area} a-o-,i it ziii "rr*ing iq.'vurds^{or equivatentto 1941,19 Sq. mts situatedat RaidurgPanmaktha} Vir[g", Serilingampattv^{tUaniat,GHMCCircle, Ranga ReddvDistrict'} J9lglq?n'ⁱⁿ prriiin"u of tlhe initijt^{prol"r.ing Fees paid by^the petitioneron 17-12-2_0.20.vide} [""Jpt r.r",^{cHMCtOl22BitiO-2t",on 17'- 11-2020,in File no- 21c2011551112020'} Challan No,^{16535/20-zr, aii consequentlyset a sidethe lmpugned Noticeissued} under section^{452(2) ol GHIr'4C Act 1g55' to the petitioner vide ,FileNo} 83/UC/W.No.1o4lctR_2ollpsrcHN4C/2020,^{dated28-12-2020'and declarethe} action of the^{respondentsis toiatty illegal, arbitrary, against the principlesof natural} justice and against the^{provisions of 6HVIC act and Rules' against Law' and also} uiolrtion of article^{300-4 of Constitution of lndia'}

¶40

IA NO: 1 OF²⁰²¹

¶41

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the aff idavit^{filed in supportof the petition, ine-Higr''court may be pleased to.direct} i;; ;;;;.;";ts^{not to iakeany coercive steps againstthe petitioner's propertvi e '} bor.ercirf^{open plot in-Sv"No,83/'1, Admeasurlngabout340 Sq' Yards'or} "qri"rf""t 1941 .19 Sq.^{o mts )al.z+ situateo Sq. mis,'out'of ai'naiiurg total eanmaxtha area of Village, serilingampally 2322 Sq' yards or equivalent Mandal,to} GHtrilc circle,^{Ranga nedly oi.tiiJt, Tetanganain pursuanceof the .lmpugned} Notice issued under^{sectiolisazlot CHnIC Act 1955, to the petitioner vide File Nol} gSAJ ciw. Nr o. r o 4/c I R-2 0/T P s/G H^I'1 c/20^{2 o' d ated} ;^{28-1 2-2020}

¶42

WP NO: 608 OF²⁰²¹

¶43

Betwee n:

¶44

K. Kumari, W/o,^{Bhaskar RaLu, Aged} +.oy!' 96^{vears Occ Household' R/o' H'} No, 1-58, Panduva,"\iesi-ooo'"uiii^{Disrrict' A'ndhri Pradesh'Rep by GPA} Holder, Syed^{Abdul Muq't;da;riirli'rn, sl".3bdulJaleel sved' Aged about'51} -?0 1, 8-l-329/A/1 /i s, Kohesa r colo nv. vea^rs, occ^{a usrness,'"RJol]i:Ni;:'Fi;i'N;,} shaikpet' Hyderabad

¶45

...pETrroNER

¶46

AND 1 The State of^{Telangana,Rep by its Principal Secretary' MAUD Department'} Secretariat,^HYderabad

¶47

2 The Greater^{Hyderabadtr4unicipalCorporation'Rep' by its' Commissioner' Tank} Bund, Hyderabad

¶48

3 The Greater Hvderabad^{Municipal corporation,Rep, By its, AssistantCity} Planner, Circle^{No, 20, HYderabad'}

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin tne aitiaarlt filed therewith,the High court maybe pleased} topassanorderororde.",o*n"-intf't"natureofWritofMandamusdeclaringthe action of^{the respondents"ioinot consideringand grantingthe sanctionplanin} respect of the^{petition"ttpiop"r.ty-ie- Co'"'er"iai open plot in Sy' No'83/1'}

¶51

¶52

Admeasuring about 361 Sq.^{Yards, or equivalentto 301.79 Sq. mts, out of total area} ol 2322 Sq.^yards or equivalent^{to 1941.19 Sq. mts situatedat RaidurgPanmaktha} village, serilingampally Mandal,^{GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District. Telangana,by} virtue of Registered Sale^{Deed, Vide Doc, No 4783/2014,dated.1910912014'} registered at SRO, Gandipet in^{pursuance of the initial processing Fees paid by the} peiitioner on 1Tt1212020 vide Receipt No, GHMC/612282120-21,^{on 16/1 112020, in} File no, 2tC2Ol155ogl2020, Challan No, 16523/20-21 ,^{and consequentlyset a side} the lmpugned Notice issued^{under section 452(2) of GHMC Act 1955, to the} petitioner vide File No. 83/UC/W.No.104/ClR-20/TPS/GHIVC/2020,^dated. 28t1212020, and declare the action of the^{respondents is totally illegal, arbitrary,} against the^principles of natural^{justice and againstthe provisionsof GHMC act and} Rules, against Law, and also violation^{of article 300-4 of Constitutionof lndia}

¶53

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedplease} direct the respondents not to take any coercive^{steps against the petitioners property} i.e.. Commercial open^plot in Sy,^No,83/1 ,^{Admeasuringabout 361 Sq. Yards, or} equivalent to 30'l .79 Sq. mts, out of total area^{of 2322 Sq. yards or equivalentto} 1941 .19 Sq. mts situated at Raidurg Panmaktha^{Village, Serilingampally Mandal,} GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana,^{by virtueof RegisteredSale Deed,} Vide Doc, No. 478312014, dated. 1910912014,^{registeredat SRO, Gandipet. in} pursuance of the Impugned Notice issued under section 452(2) of GHIVC Act 1955, to the^petitioner vide File No. B3/UC/W.No.104/C'1^{R-2O/TPS/GHlt/C/2020'dated.} 2811212020

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner in all WP's:SRl.^{SURESH SHIV SAGAR}

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in all^{WP's: GP FOR MUNICIPAL} ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3:^{in all WP's SRl.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR} REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶58

The Court made the following:

¶59

THE HON'BLD SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 559, 560 587 and 6o8of 2o2L

¶60

COMMON ORDER:

¶61

Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, iearned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for the respondents.

¶63

In al1 these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in granting^permission for making construction in their respective plots situated in survey No.83/ 1 at Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal.

¶64

Initialiy, this Court, while directing the official respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, has aiso directed the petitioners not to proceed with arry further construction.

¶65

Subsequently, on 22.03.202 1, the petitioners have^given an undertaking to the effect that they will^removethe unauthorizedly constructed portions on the road^{affected area,} for which Award has been passed. On 07.04.2021, the^learned counsel for the petitioners has reported that as^{per the} undertaking given on 22.03.202I, the petitioners^{have removed} the unautholzedly constructed^portions.

¶66

I I

¶67

Today, the^{learned Standing Counsel, based on the $'ritten} instructionsreceivedfromtheAssistantCityPlanner' Serilingampally,^{Circle-2O, GHMC, has sated that the petitioners} have already^{removed the road encroachedportions and the} unauthorizedly^{constructedportion inopen plots insurvey} No.83/1 situated^{at Raidurga Panmaktha Village'Learned} Standing Counsel^{hasfurther stated insofar asthe} compensation^{is concerned,the matter is pending adjudication'}

¶68

Having regard^{to the fact that the petitioners have already} removed the^{portions of unauthorizedconstruction, the official} respondentscannothaveanygrievancethatthepetitionershave constructed without^{any permission and there is no provision} undertheGHMCActtograntpermissionafterconstructionof the structures.^{Therefore, the officialrespondentsare directed} to consider the applications^{of the petitioners for grant of} building permission,^{on its own merits,and pass necessary} orders thereon,^{as expeditiouslyas possible,preferably,withina} period of eight weeks from^{the date of receipt of a copy of this} order.

¶69

With above directions,^{all the Writ Petitions are disposed}

¶70

of.

¶71

The miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shal1 stand}

¶72

closed. There shall^{be no orderas to costs.}

¶73

Sd/. N. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT^REGIS R

¶74

,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76

The Principal^{Secretary'IMAUDDepartment' State of Telangana'Secretariat'} Hyderabad-Commissioner,

¶77

Z. ine Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation' TankBund'} Hyderabad.

¶78

3.TheAssistantCityPlanner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation'CircleNo' 20, Hyderabad.

¶79

a. a CCi to^{Sri. SureshShivSagar' Advocatetofycl}

¶80

S. One CC to^{Sri. SampathPrab-hakar Reddy, SC for GHMC (OPUC)} 6. i;; CCs to^{GP for lVunicif al Administratjon & Urban Development'HighCourt} for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶81

Two CD^CoPies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/07/2021

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.559, 560, 587, 608^{of 2021}

¶86

1 t{ F. rA 16
k
o,J-)
0I JUr20fl o
..I
<br>D )
a

¶87

Disposing of the WP's Without costs.

¶88

-s
92'

Kandadi Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandadi Ramakrishna Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yerrabelli Mamatha, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. S.V.V. Media Broadcasting Private Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sarva Babu Yadav and Another Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

K. Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

K. Ajay Babu Vs The State of Telangana

S. Ramaraju Varma Vs The State of Telangana