Disposed

M/s Trust Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2022WP/1986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order jointly hears petitions by Niliza Imran Baig regarding non-enforcement of removal orders for illegal constructions and M/s Trust Constructions regarding a demolition notice. The Court found the demolition notice under Section 636 GHMC Act did not specify deviations.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to visit site, issue notice specifying deviations, grant 1 week for explanation, pass orders within 1 week.

M/s Trust Constructions Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

I\4ONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos.27201 of^{2021 & 1986 of 2022}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:^{27201 OF 2021}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Niliza lmran Baig, S/o Late^{t,4iza Kaza Ali Baig, agedabout 53 years, Occ:Private} service,R/o.H.No.11-6-3T4,Lakadikapul,Hyderabad. ...pETtTtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Municipal Administration and Urban Development} DeoartniBnt. Secrelariat,^{rep. by iusPrincipal Secretary, Hyderabad.}

¶13

Gr6ater Hyderabad lr/unici[al Corporation,^{Rep. by its Chief Commissioner,} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Zonal Commissioner,^{Khairatabad Zone, Greater HyderabadMunicipal} Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Mdniclpal Commissioner,^{Circle-'12,Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corooration. Hvderabad.

¶16

s, The nssistaht City Planner,^{Ctcle-12,Greater HyderabadMunicipal} Corooration. Hvderabad.

¶17

The District Re'gistrar^{of Assurances, Stamps and RegistrationDepartment,} Hyderabad District.

¶18

The Joint Sub-Registrar, Golconda.^Hyderabad.

¶19

Marva Khanum, dto \tl'iza^{lrfanBaig,aged about 41 years, Occ. House hold,} RJo Flat No.^'103, H.No.11-4-625,^{ACGuards,l\4oghal MaazApartments,} Hvderabad.

¶20

F6rva Khanum, D/o^{Mr. Mirza lrfan Baig, agedAbout37 years' Occ} HoJsehold Fyo Flat No. 103,^{H.No.11-4-625,AC Guards, Moghallvlaaz} Aoarlments. Hvderabad.

¶21

F;khriva lrfan,-D/o lvlr Miza^{lrfanBaig, aged About35 years, Occ Private} servic6 R/o Flat No.^{'103, H.No.1'1-4-625,AC Guards, Moghal Maaz} Apartments, Hyderabad.

¶22

M/s Trust Con6tructions, having^{officeat H.No.2-6-41l27, 95 and96, Flat No.} 501 , Tower-2 Residency,^{AkbeiHills,Upperpaliy, Rajendranagar.Rep by its} manaqinq^partner Mir Ybusuf Ali^{S/o Shujath Ali Kaiser, aged about45 years'} Occ. Euslness, RJo H.No. 8-1-34718,1911^{to 4, Flat No. 108,Rahul Colony'} Towlichowki, Hyderabad-8.

¶23

...RES'ONOENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumslances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue Writ, order or direclion^{particularlyone in} the^{natureof WRIT OF} MANDAMUS declaring the action of^{respondents2 to 5 in not initiating action for}

¶25

¶26

removal^{of illegalconstruction in premises No' 11-6-873/D' Lakdikapul Hyderabad'} inspite of orders^{in W.P.No.22576of 2019 and in CC No-1522of 2019' as illegal'} arbitrary and^{contraryto theprovisions of GHMCAct and rules made and} consequently^{directthe respondents2 to 5 to remove the entire illegal} constructions^{in premises No 11-6-873/D' Lakdikapul Hyderabad'}

¶27

IA NO:^{'t oF 2021}

¶28

Petition under^{Section151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} the respondents^{2 to 5 fo remove the entire illegal constructionsin premises No'} 11-6-873/0,^{Lakdikapul Hyderabad, pendingdisposal of the main Writ petition} IA NO: 2^OF 21

¶29

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} the respondents^{6 and 7 not to entertainany documentsfor registrationof any} portion of the building^{in premises No'1'1-6-873/D'Lakdikapul Hyderabad'pending} disposal^{of the main Writ petition'}

¶30

IA O:3 OF 21

¶31

Petition^{under Section151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances staledin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} appoint an^{advocate commissionerto note downthe physical featuresof the} structures in^{premisesNo. 1'1-6-873/0,Lakdikapul Hyderabad includingto note} down any^{road/laneis existingon the southernside of the premisesNo1 1-6-} 873/D, Lakdikapul^{Hyderabad,pending disposal of the main Writ petition'} Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI' SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA}

¶32

Counsel for^{the ResPondent No'1:} ---"-G;;oinur.lictpal aorvttt'ttsrRnrtoH AND URBAN DEvELoPMENT

¶33

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'2 to 5: SRI NEELI ASHO-K-KUMAR'} SC FOR^GHMC

¶34

Counsel for '-^{the Respondent Nos'6& 7:} GP FOR^{STAMPS ANO REGISTRATIONS}

¶35

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'8 to 1 1: SRIABDUL-MATEEN OURESHI} SENIOR^COUNSEL

-,/ I

Between:

WRIT PETITION NO: 1986 OF 2022

¶40

Ir,4/s Trust Constructions, Rep by its Managing^{PartnerI,4r. Mir YousufAli S/o} Mir Sujath Ali kaiser, Aged. 40^years, Occ.^{Business,Fyo. H. No 8-1-} 347tBtgt1 to 4, Flat No 168, A and B Residency^{RahulColony, Hyderabad,}

¶41

Mrs. Marya Khanum, Olo. Miea lrfan^Baig ,^{FYo.10-4-40,Flat No.505,Noble} Residency, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.,^T .s.

¶42

lvls. Farya Khanum, D/o. Miza lrfan Ba ig, R/o.11-6-874, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hvderabad.

¶43

tult.Fakhriya lrfan, Ms.Fakhriya lrfan. D/o. Mirza lrfan Baig, RYo.11-6-874, Lakadi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.

¶44

(Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 represented by their GPA holder lvlir Yousuf Ali, S/o^Mir sujath Ali Karser i.e. Petitioner No.1 ) ...pETrroNERS

¶45

AND

¶46

1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary^lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development^{Department,. Secretariat,Saifabad,} Hyderabad

¶47

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{rep. by it's Chief} Commissioner office at Tank Bund,^Hyderabad

¶48

The Zonal Commissioner, Khairatabad Zone, Greater^{Hyderabadlrilunicipal} Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶49

Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Circle^{- 1 2, Office at GreaterHyderabad} Municipal Corporation. Hyderabad.

¶50

The Assistanl City Planner, Cicle-^{12,Greater HyderabadMunicipal} Corporation. Office at Khairatabad Hyderabad.

¶51

Mirza lmran Baig, S/o Late l/irza Kaza Ali Baig,^{Aged about54 years, Occ.} Private Service, RJo.H.No. 1 1 -6-874, Lakadikapool,

¶52

"rO"trO1;!aaTONOENTS

¶53

Pelition under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^maybe pleased to issue a Writ most appropriately a Writ of l,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents trying to further^{demolishthe petitioners' property House} bearing No.1116/873/D admeasuring 465 sq.yards, situated at^{Lakdi-ka-pool,} Hyderabad, T.S., as illegal, void, ultra virus and unconstitutional.

¶54

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶55

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to direct} the respondent No.2 to 5 not to further^demolish the^{petitioners' propertyHouse}

I /

bearing No.11/6/873/D^{admeasuring465sq yards' situated at Lakdi-ka-pool'}

¶60

Hyderabad,^{T.S., pending disposal of the writpetition'}

¶61

Counsel for the^{Petitioners: SRl. MD. ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI'} SENIOR COUNSEL

¶62

Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo.1:}

¶63

--- ci FoR MUNicIPAL ADMlNlsrRATloN AND URBAN DEvELoPMENT

¶64

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.2to 5: SRINEELIASHOK KUMAR'} SC FOR GHMC

¶65

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.6: SRl. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA}

¶66

The Court made^{the following: COMMON ORDER}

¶67

¶68

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶69

1VRIT PETITION Nos.272OL of 2O2L and 1986 of 2022

¶70

COMMON ORDER:

¶71

Writ petition No.272O 1 of 2021 is filed questioning the action of the respond'ent Nos.2 to 5 in not initiating action for removal of illegal constmction in premises No.11-6-873/D, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad in spite of orders in w.P.No.22576 of 2019 and in C.C.No.1522 ol 2079 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶72

Writ petition No.1986 of 2022 is Iiled questioning the action of the respondents trying to further demolish the petitioners property House bearing N o, 7 I / 6 / A7 3 / D admeasuring 46 ssqua-re yards situated at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad as illegal ald arbitrary.

¶73

In W.P.No.272O1 of 2O2l, Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner and his brothers are owners of the property in premises No.11-6-874, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and the respondent Nos.S to 1O are owners of the property admeasuring 465sq.yards in premises No. 1 1-6-873/D, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad which is situated on the southern side of the petitioner's property. Earlier when the respondent Nos.8 to 1O started illegal construction of cellar in the last week of October, 2019, the petitioner being the owner of the northern side property made a

W.P.Nos.27201 of 2021 & 1986 of ZOZ2

¶78

complaint to the respondent authorities on 30.O9.2019. Later, ttre respondents inspected the site arrd stopped the unauthorized construction and issued notice dated 0S.1O.2O19 under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of the GHMC Act and directed the owner to stop the work and also removed the centering of the unauthorized constmction of cellar from 09 .70.20 t9 and 12.1O.2019. He further submits that the petitioner filed W.P.No.22576 of 2OL9 before this Court and an interim order is passed directing the respondents take appropriate action and file a status report. As the respondents failed to file the said report, the petitioner filed contempt case vide C.C.No.1S22 of 2O7g before this Court. On the ground that under the guise of contempt case, the official respondents are proposing to demolish the building without following procedure, the unofficial respondents have filed W.p.No.25334 of 2OI9 and when both the matters are taken up for hearing on 26.71.2019, the writ petition W.P.No.25334 of 2C-79 is dismissed and the writ petition W.P.No.22576 ot 2Ol9 filed by the petitioner is disposed of. He submits that in spite of the said orders, no action has been initiated by the respondents. Hence, it is stated that the officials respondents hand in glove with unofficial respondents in

¶79

¶80

w .P .Nos.27 201^{of 2021} &^{1'986of Z0Z2}

¶81

¶82

¶83

collusion with them^{are notremoving theunauthorized} constructions^{made by the unofficialrespondentsin cellaras well} as fourth and fifth.^{floors.Thoughit isstated thatthe} respondents have^{closed the celiar, no such action has been} initiated by them.^{Hence,the petitioner hascome up before the} Court.

¶84

t 4. In w.P.No. 198 6 of^{2022, Md. AbdulMateenQureshi,} learned Senior^{Counsel appearingfor petitioners submits that} the respondents^{failed to follow the due process and pointed out} at ttre notice dated^{O8,11.2O21 purported to be issued under} Section 636 of GHMC^{Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), he submits} that no notice under Section^{451 or 452 of the Act was issued to} the petitioners. Even in^{the notice issued underSection636 of} the Act also they^{have not mentionedwhat are the deviations,} what are the structures^{thattraveto be removedbythe} petitioners and thus a vague^{notice was issued'He submitsthat} certain land. of the^{petitionershas beenacquired underLand} Acquisition ald the^{petitionersare entitled for the benefitsunder} G.O.Ms.No.483 MA^{dated 24.O8-f99a and ifan opportunity of} notice has been^{given to the petitioners, theywor]ld have come} up with a suitable^{explanation to the said show causenotice' He}

¶85

W.P.Nos.27201of2021 &^{19A6ot 20Zz}

¶86

¶87

submits that without^{issuing show cantsenotice and without} mentioning the deviations, the^{respondentsare highhandedly} resorting to the demolition of^{the petitioners structures,In} response to the same, Mr.^{SreenivasaRao Velive1a, learned} counsel appearing for unofficial^{respondentssubmits that in} respect of acquisition of the^{petitionersland, an Award was} passed and amor:nt of compensation^{is paid to them.}

¶88

6- Thb learned Standing Counsel^{Mr. N. AshokKumar} submits that without any^{permission when the petitioners in} W.P.No. 1986 of 2Q22 are^going ahead^{withthe construction,they} have issued notice under Section^{452(1) and 461(1) of the Act.} Later they have issued a finaL notice^{underSection 636 of the Act} and in the meantime, the^{petitionershave constructeddeviating} the building permission. Hence,^{they haveclosedthe cellar} portion and due to Covid- 19 in the meantime,^{the petitioners} have constructed the 4th and Sfr floors^{illegally and also as per} the approved plan of stilt⁺ 3 upper^{floors, ttrere are certain} deviations. He submits that^{petitioners are not entitledfor any} notice under Section 451 (1) and^{(2) of the Act as the petitioners} made construction withor.rt any^{approved plan. It isa-1so} submitted that the petitioners are not^{entitled for the benefit}

¶89

w.P.Nos.27201of2021 &19a6^{ot 2022}

¶90

¶91

under G.O.Ms.No.4a3 MA dated 24-Oa-L99A^{and that is part of} the lald acqr.risition^proceedings and^{even if ata-ll theyare} entitled, they should have^{filed an application.He submits that} petitioners without any approved^plan had^{illegally made} construction.

¶92

¶93

Having heard the learned coirnsel^{on eithersideand} perused the material on record. The admitted^{factsare that as far} 4,n a.i"!,n floors are concerned,^{the unofficial respondentsi.e.} "" petitioners in W.P.No.1986 of 2022^{were not issued noticeunder} Section 451(1) and⁽²⁾ of the^{Act and even in the impugned notice} purported to have been issued under^{Section636 of the Act} dated 08.11.2O21, the^{respondentshave notspecifiedthe} deviations except stating^{that deviatedportion of stilt + 3 upper} floors and unauthorized/illegal^{construction41hand5th floorsat} premises bearing No.11-6-873/D situated^{atLakdikapul,} Hyderabad to be removed.

¶94

a. As rightly pointed out by^{the learnedSenior Counsel, the} respondents in the notice^{issuedunderSection 636 of the Act} ought to have mentioned^{what is the sanctioned pIaI ald what} are the deviations and what are^{the unauthorized construction}

¶95

W,P,Nos,272O1ot 2OZt & tg}6 of 2O2Z

¶96

¶97

that has to be removed. But the said notice is silent in this regard

¶98

Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ^petitions by directing the respondent Corporation to visit the site and then issue a nodce to the petitioners in w.p.No. 19g6 of 2022 specifying the deviations and granting a week,s time to the petitioner to submit his explanation and after receiving the said explaflation, the respondent Corporation shall pass appropriate orders_rvithin one (1) week thereon giving 15 days time to the petitioners Till such time, the petitioners in w.p.No.19g6 of 2022 shdl not make any constructions in subject premises. No order as to costs.

¶99

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶100

Sd/. T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t1 , To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The^principal Secretarv ; ;5:r ffitjin ,#ritrxi,r,",.Hl: ffi :hfl###il::T,,:1 ' ih:?irfl ,:"riff:ion^{er' Khai ratabadZone,GreaterHvderabadr,4u n icipa} r commissione., ci.cte-12, creater Hyderabad N,4unicipar i i::r::il{X^Ti?:ipar circte- 12' Greater Hvderabad Municipar : di:dtliJi:tijI.:m"t " t!!:"'r|"j:st Segistrar of Assurances, stamps and Registration Department, f n"^^{J^"IlS}_legi stra r, colco nda. Hyderabad. u:y#EEb.'il'6""13:il1?,f,r:?i.*i[B,f ;fl.,"Hil",i j,!#BJveropment,H,srr l:iu:lj:i$;i[i3i!,iffi iqau[l,:,*rsri",,"Llr.ro-ires,a,eor j3,?;!EHLBBtl??rifi i]",1#,A,:,r;$?I3.Igili8J?Byq on" Spare bopy .P" "rA.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510412022

COMMON^ORDER W.P.Nos.27^{201 ol 2021 & 1986 of 20}

¶106

(
1 8l'1lii :.,'"i:11 .i
tj
\in .<
i.i a.rr,'..- :../

¶107

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS
WITHOUT COSTS
.:)/'
e3 5

M/s Trust Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Trust Constructions 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

M.A. Majeed and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kagithapu Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Smt.Sunnam Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Lokesh Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Ms.Kavadi Gouthami Vs The Station House Officer and another