Dismissed

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC11 Apr 2022WP/13332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the HMDA's grant of final layout despite an earlier show-cause notice. Finding the petitioner failed to substantiate violations or show cause that the procedure was flawed, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications closed.

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAO (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13332 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Pedda Raji Reddy, S/o Aged about. 80 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o Karimguda Rampally, Keesara lvlandal, Nledchal-tvlalka.igiri District-

¶8

K. Varakanth Reddy, S/o K. Anji Reddy, Aged about. 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Karimguda Rampally, Keesara Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶9

K. Ram Reddy, S/o K. An.ii Reddy, Aged about. 42^years, Occ. Business, R/o Karimguda Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶10

..PETTTTONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Hyderabad l,letropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

Rapolu Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Aged about. 57^years, Occ. Business, Fl/o 1-5-1111, Street No.8/2'1, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶15

Rapolu Anji Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Aged about. 54^years, Occ. Business, R/o'l-55-2C, Brindavan Colony, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

Rapolu Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Mukunda, Reddy, Aged about. 47^years, Occ- Business, Ryo H.No.7-4115, Bapu.ii Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad^{- 073}

¶17

Rapolu Lalitha, Wo R. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about.44^years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.7-4115, Bapuji Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad^- 073-

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the action of the^Respondent No.2ⁱⁿ

¶20

granting final layout in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, vide Appiication No.050290/LT/GHT/FLT/U6/HM D A11611?021 , dated 91212022, despite the fact that the Respondent No.2 has issued notices to lhe Respondent No.3 to 6 on 51212022, for cancellalion of draft layout, basing on the complainl lodged by the Petitioners, whereas, the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have submitted their explanation on 251212022, but curiously lhe Respondent No.2, by abusing the^power, and in collusion with the Respondent Nos.3 to 6, the Respondent No.2 with a back date i.e.,91212022, before submitting the explanation by the Respondent Nos.3 to 6, he has granted final layout in favour of the Respondent Nos.3 to 6, as arbitrary, illegal, colourbale exercise of power, abusing the power and contrary to Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Act, 2008 and consequently set aside the final layout issued in favour of the Respondnet Nos.3 to 6, vide Application No.050290/LT/GHT/FLT/U6/HMDN 161 12021, daled 91212022, and pass

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in IA.NO. 1 of 2022 in W.P.No. 13332 of 2022 daled 1510312022 and pass

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 suspend the final layout, issued by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the

¶25

Respondent Nos.3 to 6, vide Application No.OS029O/LT/G HT/FLT/U6 HMDA|16112021, dated 9t2t2022, and pass

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶27

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 vacate the interim order dated 1s-03-2022 passed in wp- No. 13332 of zo22 in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) ;SRl. GADDAM SRtNIVAS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶30

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶31

'f lili II()'tlt.t.. s\t r'. Jt:s't't('[] L.\LI1.il.,\ K.\N\t.G,\N.t.l \'RI.t' I't. t't'iloN No . 13332 of 2022

¶32

o rtI)E t{

¶33

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in granting final layout in lavour ol respondent Nos.3 to 6, vlde application dated,09.02.2O22.

¶34

When the matter camp up for admission on 15.03.2022, this Court has passed the following order:

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in granting final layout in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 vide Appt ication No.050290/LTIGHT /FLT /U 6/ILMD At t 6 I I 202 t, dated 09.O2.2022, despite rhe fact that respondent No.2 had issued notices to respondent Nos.3 to 6 on 05.02.2022 for cancellation oldraft Iayout, basing on the complaint todged by the petitioners, as ittegal and arbitrary.

¶36

The case of petitioners is that they are absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.747 situated at Rampally village, Keesara Mandal. It is stated that earlier, when respondent Nos.3 to 6 along with others have tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.3g9 of202l on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit is pending for determination. It is further stated that initia[y, they came to know that respondent Nos.3 to 6 have obtained permission from respondent No.2

¶37

l L., W I \r) lirll oalr,ll

¶38

b1, shorving the lands of petitioncrs as their lands. lt is statetl that under Secrion 22 ol- I{MDA Act, 200g, respondent No.2 has power to cancel thc permission granted if the applicant obtains pernrission by rnisreprcsentation and suppression of the facts. The petitioncrs have subrnitted a represcntation to respondent No.2 and when the sarlre is not considcred, they have filed W.p.No.g23 I of 2022,which was ad.lounred lor counrer on t4.03.2022. Then, after filing of the said writ petition, the petitioners have received a copy of notice dated 05.02.2022 issued by respondent No.2 to respondent Nos.3 to 6 directing them to submit their explanation as to why the draft layout permission should not be

¶39

cancelled/revoked for suppressing the facts. Respondent No.3 has submitred his explanation on 25.02.2022 srating that he received the said notice on 19.02.2022.Ir is stated that even before the explanation is received frorn respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has granted final layout in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 by proceedings dated 09.02.2022.

¶40

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that when once a notice was issued to respondent No.3, even before the reply is received lrom respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has granted final lay out to respondent Nos.3 to 6 and as such, the said order is Iiabre to be set aside.

¶41

On the other hand, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing counsel for HMDA, submits that after following the procedure laid dowq permission was granted to the respondents and in view of the disputes between the petitioners and tle respondents, the present writ peririon is filed.

¶42

Admittedly, in this case the petitioners have given a representation to respondent No.2 on 24.02.2022 and when the said representation was not considered, the petitioners have flled

¶43

¶44

W.P.No.82i I of 2012 hef'ore this^('ourt and lhe sarne $,as adjourned for filing of counter by the rcspondents. A notice dated 05.02.2022 was issued by respondcnt No.2 to rcspondent Nos.3 to 6 asking them to show^.causc as to why the dralt layout permission shall not be cancelled/revoked fbr suppressing the facts. It is also admitted drat respondent No.3 has subrnitted his explanation on 25.02.2022 stating that he has received the said notice on 19.02.2022, but surprisingly, the order granting final layout was passed on 09.02.2027 that itself shows that even before the explanation received from respondent No.3, the impugned proceedings granting final layout in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 was passed.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances, the irnpugned order dated 09.02-2022 is suspended until firrther orders. The petitioners are permitted to file their objections to the impugned order. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the explanation submitted by respondent No.3 dated 25.02.2022 as well as the objections, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from passing any final orders.

¶46

t I

¶47

When the matter came up on 01.04.2022, leamed Standing Counsel for HMDA Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, submitted that petitioner has not filed i any documents to substantiate his case. Then, the matter is adjoumed to this day permitting the petitioner to submit relevant documents. The petitioners filed additional affidavit stating that in spite of best efforts, they could not get the relevant documents.

¶48

¶49

Lcarncd Standing Counsel subnlits thal the respondent authorities lrave granted Iayout pcrnission to the unofficial respondents having been satisficd with thc docuntents submittcd by thcrn. Lcarned Standing counscl has placed befbre this Court the letter dated 08.04.2022 addressed to the petitioncrs stating that the complaint petition dated 28.03.2022 has been examined and petitioners have not submitted any a<iditional documents in support of their cornplaint, the order passed by the office dated 25.03.2022 holds good and the cornplaint petition is accordingly disposed. Learned Standing Counsel also served a copy of the letter dated 08.04.2022 to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents.

¶50

As the petitioners could not make out any case for interference with the proceedings dated 09.02.2022, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications, pending ifany, shall stand closed.

¶52

To,

¶53

,TRUE COPY'

¶54

SD/-K.AM MAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secffircen

¶55

One CC to SRl. GADDAM SRTNIVAS Advocate [OpUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV,High Court for lhe State of Telangana At Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶57

Two CD Copies

¶58

One Spare Copy

MSL SW '\x

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1tO4t2O22

,/. 1 I 514T6, Q6
'i t-
21 rx$ 2$n

¶65

ORDER

¶66

WP.No.13332 of 2022

¶67

DISMISSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS \

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and 5 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

Maria Xavier Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Syed Rizwan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Zaheda Begum Vs The Principle Secretary and 4 others

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

Mohammed Abdul Razzak Vs State of Telangana