Allowed

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022WP/11168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a municipality notice stopping construction. The court held that the revocation of prior building permission was illegal as no notice was served. It set aside the proceedings and directed authorities to follow due process, deeming the application approved if no orders are passed within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned notice dated 16.02.2022; directed issuance of show-cause notice; stay on coercive steps.

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma Vs The State of Telangana and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT P ETITION NO: 11168 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma, W/o. Md.^{Yousuf Khan, Aged. 57 years,Caste.} Schedule Tribe (koya), Occ. Social Worker,^{Rl/o.H. No. 12-4-136, Ramnagar} Street, Miryalguda Road, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the^{Department of} It/unici f al Administiation and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The I,4unicipal Commissioner, IVlunicipal Council, Nalgonda,^{NalgondaDistrict,} T.S.

¶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 Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the subsequent notice No. 0212022fi PS/NLG, dated^1610212022 issued by the respondent No.2 against the^petitioner's House bearing^{MunicipalNo. 12-} 4-136, old 4-136, reconstructed on an extent oI 4732 Square Feet with G^{plus2 in} Sy. No. 229 and 237 out of total extent of 22^guntas at Gollaguda Village, Ram Nagar of Nalgonda Municipality are illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, null and void, against the statute, in violation of^principles of natural^justice and in^violationof the fundamental and constitutional rights of the^petitioner, in the interest of^justice and equity.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of second notice No. 02l2022fiPSlNLG, dated^1610212022

¶17

¶18

issued by the respondent^{No.2 against the petitioners Housebearing Municipal} No. 12-4-136, old 4-136 at^{GollagudaVillage, Ram Nagar of Nalgonda} Municipality, till the disposal^{of the writ petition in the interestof justiceand} equity

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to} direct the registry to^{receivethe document proceedingsNo. F1277612019,dated} 23-07 -2019 and add to^{the list of documents submitted along with writ petitionas} exhibit P5 in the interest^{of justice and equity.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{MOHAMMEDRAHAIL AHMED}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMNURBAN DEV}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2:SRlN.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC)} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 111 6a oF 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2"d respondent - Municipality in issuing the notice under Section 178(6) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, dated 16.02.2022 and taking coercive steps in respect of the house bearing No. 4-136 situated in Survey Nos. 229 and 237 at Gollagyda Village, Ram Nagar, Nalgonda as arbirrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject house property allotted to her by the government which is in a dilapidated condition. She made a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer on O4.OT .2019 seeking permission for construction of a new house by demolishing the old house. On the suggestion made by the revenue officials, the petitioner filed Applicati on online for construction of new house. After due enquiry, the 2"d respondent issued permission to petitioner uide permission dated 19.06.2021 to an extent of 90 square yards, permission dated 23.06.2021 to an extent of 120 square yards, permission dated O2.O7.202 1 to an extent of 1BO sure yards and permit ilated OT .O7 .202 1 to an extent of l SO square yards, total to an extent of 54O square yards. However,

¶28

¶29

to the^{surpriseof the petitioner'the 2nd respondent issued} notice dated^16.02 '2Cl22^{to stop the construction and obtain} building^{permissionfrom NalgondaMunicipality withinthree} days.

¶30

Learned^{counsel for the petitionerSri Mohammed} RahailAhmedsubmitsthatthepetitionerafterobtaining permission^{is proceedingwith the construction'}

¶31

Sri N Praveen^{Kumar' learnedStanding Counsel for} the Municipality^{submits that the permissionswhichwas} granted to the^{petitionerwere revoked and in spite of the same'} she is^{going ahead with the construction'hence' the impugned} notice was^{issued under Section 178(6) of the Act'}

¶32

In response^{to the same' learned counsei for the} petitioner submits^{that the revocation order was not served on} the petitioner^{and this Courtin Writ Petition No 20398 of 2021} and batch,^{dated13 '12} '2021^{held that whiie revoking} permission, a^{notice is required to be givento the applicant'} Admittediy,^{in this case,the revocation order was not servedon} the^petitioner.

¶33

¶34

ln the light^{of the orderpassedby this Court in Writ} Petition^{No. 20398 of 2O2l and batch' dated 13 12'2021' the} Writ Petition^{is allowed and the impugnedproceedingsdated}

¶35

¶36

16,O2.2022 is set aside. The respondents are directed to serve a show cause notice along with a copy of the revocation order. The petitioner is directed to submit her explanation to the objections pointed out in the impugned revocation order to the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from today. On such submission of explanation, the respondent authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of TS-bPASS Act and the Rules made thereunder, within^-a period of one week from the date of receipt of such explanation. If no orders are passed by the respondent authorities within the time indicated above, there shall be deemed approval of the application of the petitioner filed for construction of building. It is made clear that until the orders are passed as stated above, the petitioner shall not proceed with any type of constructions. in the subject land and the respondent authorities also shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 . The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.

¶37

SD/-T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Akr SECTION OF FICER

¶38

To, 1. The Principal Secretary to the Department of N/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

turA

¶40

The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, T.S.

¶41

One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED RAHAIL AHMED Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL AD[\4N URBAN DEV,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶42

One CC to SRl. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC), Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies. .7. One Spare Copy.

GBBS v

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510312022

g :}TATI
1
i'
co sx JuN 1[?1 .b
t
?

ORDER

WP.No.11168 of 2022

ALLOWING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

V.Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Sagarla Pavan Vs The State of Telangana

S.Anand Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Somidi. Venu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Ghousia Begum Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation