Petitioners challenged layout permission granted by Respondents, arguing lack of jurisdiction and violation of rules. Court directed Corporation to consider fresh representation from petitioners within six weeks.
Direction to respond to petitions within six weeks. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial OriginalJurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF O€TOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRITPETITIO NNO :13478OF2022
o*?
(RR 6 to 10 are impleadedas per Court Order' dated 19'10 2022 in l'A No 4 otzozz)
"'RESP.NDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedtherewith'the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the natureof wRrr oFMANDAMUS, decraring the action of Respondent No.2and 3 in granting tentativelayout permission having no administrativejurisdictionvide proceedings dated 02.01.2016in Proc No79512/11/1.l t2O14tHOfor propertyadmeasuring
Ac 10.26Gts situatedin Survey No 1 (P) 20 ( P)' 21 ( P) ' 71J2J3J6j06J07 and109 situated at Yapral Village'MalkalgiriMandal Ranga Reddy District to encroachers/ t'u'p"tt"" witnoui any lawful right' title and interest over the said propertyinter alia without issuing notice or intimationto the petitionersnor exercisingthe inherent powers U/Sec 22 oflhe HyderabadMetropolitan DevelopmentAuthority Act 2008 or under U/S 450 of HyderabadMunicipal CorporationAct 1955 despite severalrepresentationsfor cancelling the tentative layoutgrantingany approvalas manifestly arbitraryper se illegal' void ab initio' deliberatedelinquentderelictionofofficialduty,withoutiurisdictionandviolativeofprinciplesof naturaljustice besides being contrary to section 20 of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation Act'1955 and Rules made thereunderand opposedto Articles14, 21and 300-A of Constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirect respondentsto henceforth cancel / revokethe tentative layout permission granted withoutadministrative iurisdictionvide proceedings dated02 01'2016 in ProcNo- 7gs1ztj jt11t2o14^ioio,. property admeasuring Ac. 10.26Gts situated in Survey andlOgsituatedatYapral Village No.1(P )20 (P) 21 (P</sup> '71'72'73'76'106'107 MalkaigiriMandal'Ranga Reddy District'
IA NO:10F2022 Petitionunder Secti on 151 CPC PraYing that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct ondentNo.4 not to entertain / grant/approve any layout received either resp r thepropertysituated in SurveyNo1 through respondent No'5 or fromanYonefo 71 ,72,73,76,106 '107 and 109 situatedat Yapral Village (P)20(P),21(P) MalkaigiriMandal,Ranga ReddYDistrict wlthbut puttingthe petitioners to notlce pendingdisposal of the above writ petition' ANO:2 OFOF2022 Petitionunder SectiSection 151 CPC P151 CPC PCPC PPrayingthat in the circumstances stated in
ANO:2 OFOF2022 Petitionunder SectiSection 151 CPC P151 CPC PCPC PPrayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition , the High Court may be pleased to direct nd RespondentNo 4 to stop all further respondentNo' 2, ResPondent No 3 a ion ofbuildings /roads/ drainage/ constructionactivityincludingconstruct electricitylinesetc 'inter alia anY changein natureof propertyin Survey No1 71,72]3,76J06 '107 and 109 situatedat Yapral Village (P) 20(P), 21 (P) undertakenby third partiespending MalkaigiriMandal'Ranga ReddYDistrict disposalof the above writ petition
lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition underSection151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedin support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedpleased to suspend thetentative layout permission granted withoutadministrative jurisdiction vide . proceedingsdated02 01'2016 in Proc No 79512111111120141HO for property situatedin Survey No 1 (P) 20 (P),21 (P) '71'72'73'76'106'107and '109 situated at Yapral Village Malkajgiri MandalRanga Reddy District pending disposal of theabove writ petition.
Counsel for thePetitioners:SRIM.S' PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. CHENCHURAMIREDDY
CounselfortheRespondentNo.,l:GPFoRMUNIcIPALADMINISTRATIoN AND URBANDEVELOPMENT
Counsel fortheRespondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI CHATLAMADHU' SC FOR GHMC Counsel for theRespondent No' 4: SRI V' NARASIMHAGOUD' SC FOR HMDA
Counsel for theRespondent No' 5: NONEAPPEARED
Counsel fortheRespondentNos.6to 10: SRIG' VENKAT REDDY
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
IION' It t,I', SMT. .IUSTIC E I,ALI'THA KANN I.](;,ANTI
\/ltl'f I'}E]'ITI()N No.13478 of 2022
OIIDIlI{:
This u'rrt i)etition is filed seeking the following relief.
" ... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction ntorc particulariy one in the nature of WRIT 0F MANDAMUS, declaring the action ol llespondent No.2 and 3 ingranting tentativclayout permission having no administrativejurisdiction vide proceedings datecj 02.01.2016 in Proc.No.795lz/71, /t7/2014/HO forproperty admeasuring Ac.10.26 Gts. situated in Survey No.1(Pl, 2O(l'),21tP), 77, 72, 7:a, 7 6, 106, 107 and 109 situated at Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Iianga Reddy District to encroachers / trespassersf ithout any lawlul right, title and interest over the saidproperty inter alia without issuing notice or intimation to thepetitioners not'cxercising the inherent powers U/Sec.22 of the HyderabadMetropolitan Developnrent Authority Act 2008 or under U/S.450 of Ilydcrabaci Municipal Corporation Act 1955 despite several representationsfor cancclling the tentative layout granting any approval asrnanifestl,r,- arbitrary per se illegal, void ab initio, deliberate tlelinquent dereliction of official duty, without iurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice besides being contrary to section 20 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and Rulesmade thereunder and opposed to Articles 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents to henceforth cancel / revoke the tentative layout permission granted without administrativejurisdiction vide proceedings dated 02.01,.2016 in Proc.No. 795 L 2 / 71 / tt / 20L4 / HO for propeiry admeasu ring Ac.10.26 Gts. s ituated in Survey No.1 [PJ, 20 (P), zl(P),7 l,7 2, 7 3,7 6, 706,107 and 109 situated at Yapral Village, Malkaigiri Mandal,Ranga Reddy District...."
')
respondent corporation has grantecl permission and thc unofficial respondent is going al.read with the construction. FIe submits that without issuing a final layout, the respondent Corporation cannot grant building permission to the unofficial respondent. Learned senior counsel submits that even a counter_affidavit has been filed by the respondent corporation, wherein they have stated that no final layout is granted. Unless a final layout is granted, thc respondent corporation cannot grant penrrissio, for construction ofhouses.
/I
I
.l
7 " Recording the subrnission of learned counsel on either side, the writpetition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period ol six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from the petitioners. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pendine if any. shall stand. closed.
SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// "t
To,
6 Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri Chatla Madhu, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] B. One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri G. Venkat Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 10 One CC to Sri K. Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 11 Two CD Copies. 12 One spare copy. CHR SB t&
I rI
HIGH COURT
DATED:1911012022
ORDER
W.P.No.13478of 2022
1 e STAIE
'q:
a
[ 2 ilt1! 2$22
't.
a
DISPOSINGOF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS
K.C. Reddy
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
Justice Lalitha Kanne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
