Petitioner challenged an order granting building permission to an unofficial respondent despite a pending ownership dispute identified by the Corporation earlier. The Court set aside the subsequent revocation due to lack of notice and absence of jurisdiction.
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.
[3230 I
I I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 2397'l OF 2022
Between:
Cheeti Rama Rao, S/o.Late Ranga Rao, Age.51 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.2-2-'1 1461512, Rukmini Residency, Balajinagar, Nallkunta, Hyderabad.
.,.PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 declaring the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide order No.01ffPS-lll/MCKl2021 dated 16-05-2022 proceeding to grant building permission infavour of the 6 respondent and proposed to cancel the building application of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the order No.01/TPS-Ill/MCKl2021 dated 04-03-2022 ot the 3rd respondent.
Z
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide order No.o1lTpsllllMcKl2lz1 , dated. 16-05-2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Between:
Kotha Raji.Reddy, S/o Bagi Re-ddy, Aged about 62 years, R/o. H.No.T2-975, Santhosh Nagar, GVB lncline Colony, Karimnagar.'
Pet itione r/Res po ndent No.6
AND
... Respondents/Respondents 1 to 5
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Hign court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10-06-2022 passed in LA.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.23971 of 2022 with costs.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. CH.KOTESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No's. 2,4 &5:Gp FOR REVENUE
Counsel forthe Respondent No.3:SRl V.SATYAM REDDy(SC)
Counsel for the Respondent No.6:NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.23971 of 2022
ORDER:
This writpetition is filed with the followingprayer;
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe impugned orderpassed by the 3'drespondentvideorder No.01/TPS-lll/MCW2021 dated'16-05-2022proceedingto grant buildinqpermission in favourof the 6th respondentandproposedto cancel the building application ofthe petitioner as illegal,arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative ofprinciples ofnatural justicewithout jurisdiction and contrary to the order No.01/TPS-llUMCKJ2021 daled 04-03-2022 of the 3'drespondent".
LK, J W P.No 23971 of 2022
2
I
extent of the plots are not tallying on site to the documents. Hence, in view of the same and during the course of hearing, both theparties are claiming the ownership on the very sameproperty and thepermission dated 27-07-2021 filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 through TSbPASS is revoked and the respondent Corporation is not the competent authority to decide the ownership. Hence, both theparties are directed to settle the ownership dispute before the competent Court of law. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, without any notice to thepetitioner and basing on the representation made by the unofficial respondent No.6 to the Collector, the order dated 16-05-2022 was passed, wherein it is stated that in view of the recommendations of the Joint lnspection Report dated 25-03-2022 submitted by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar (Urban) and the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, has addressed a letter to the Chasing Cell, TS-bPASS, Hyderabad, with a request to re-assign the file according building permission in respect of the unofficial respondent No.6 and they will cancel the building permission in respect of the petitioner under due process of law. ln this regard, they have addressed a letter to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, for necessary action as there is no provision available in DPMS to cancel the building application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once an order was passed on 04-03-2022, wherein they have directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court, the respondent Corporation has no authority or
LK. J W.P.No.23971 of 2022
jurisdiction to pass any order and they cannot review or relook into the said matter. He submits that as on the date when the order ispassed i.e., 16-05-2022, the order dated 04-03-2022 is notquestioned by the unofficial respondent No.6 and the said order is staring at all the parties. He submits that the respondent Corporation has no authoiity or jurisdiction to pass the order impugned.
LK, J W P No 23971 ol 2022
4
I
unofficial respondent No.6 is in possession of the subject land. Earlier, the respondent Corporation has revoked thepermission granted to the unofficial respondent No.6, but as per the report submitted by the revenue authorities that the unofficial respondent No.6 is inpossession of the property, they have issued theproceedings dated 16-05-2022 to address a letter to the Chasing Cell, TSbPASS, Hyderabad, for granting building permission in respect of the unofficial respondent No.6 and also to cancel the building permission rn respect of the petitioner herein.
LK, J W.P.No.23971 of 2022
5
referred to the Joint lnspection Report submitted by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar and the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar. lt is important to note that no notice was issued to the petitioner herein and the survey department goes to the extent of saying that the unofficial respondent No.6 is inpossession of the property and basing on the survey report, the proceedings dated 16-05-2022 are issued, which are unsustainable. Once the respondent Corporation has alreadygiven a finding on 04-03-2022 that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of theproperty and both the parties are claiming the very same property, unless and until the said order is set aside, the respondents cannotpass the impugned order. Hence, the order dated 16-05-2022 is passed withoutjurisdiction and contrary to theprinciples of naturaljustice and the same is liable to set aside.
It
I I I
To,
shall stand closed
SD/. V. SUDHA //TRUE COPYI/ ASSISTANTSE::T::: \ SECTION OFFICER
Co*t
GB
GJP
I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1311012022
ORDER
sTATE Q,C
(
11 ti$ i$lt n
a
WP.No.23971 of 2022
ALLOWING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS.
t<br>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipal Corporation persisted with jurisdiction to pass a final order on building permissions after initially directing parties to settle ownership disputes in a civil court.
Whether the proceedings dated 16-05-2022 were issued in violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of notice.
Whether a revenue survey report could override a prior internal order directing parties to resolve land disputes through competent civil courts.
Cheeti Rama Rao
State of Telangana
District Collector, Karimnagar
Karimnagar Municipal Corporation
Tahsildar, Karimnagar (Urban)
Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar
LalITHa KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
