Disposed

M/s. Surabhi Farms v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC27 Oct 2022WP/28548/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-cancellation of a HMDA layout permit. The Court held that since the respondent authorities had already considered and rejected the petitioner's representation via proceedings dated 10-08-2022, there was nothing left to adjudicate in the writ petition, granting liberty for alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

Disposed without costs; liberty to avail appropriate remedy other than writ of mandamus.

M/s. Surabhi Farms Vs The State of Telengana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCIOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28528 OF 2022

¶7

Betrveen:

¶8

M/s. Surabhi Farms, Rep. by its Managing Partner S. Sathish Rao, S/o Papa Rao, Occ. business, R/o Villa No.26, Sri Adithya Casagrande, Opp. Apila Apartments, Narsingi, Gandipet, Rangareddy District-500075.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telengana, Represented by lts Principle Secretary (Municipal Administration) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Commissioner, District Commercial Complex, Administrative L Block, Tamaka, Hyderabad500 007.

¶13

The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶14

The Sub-Registrar, Medchal Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶15

Ws Minerva Resorts Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its director. Smt. A lndira, Wo Vijay Vardhan Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o H NO.B-2-69312132 and 41, Mithila Nagar, Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 or oder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2022 and not cancelling the illegal layout of the respondent No.5 in survey No.678lPan, 679lPar1 and 680/Part admeasuring an extent of 8895.27 Sq. Meters of Pochampalle Village, Gundla Pochampally Municipality and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide Layout permit No.0O0342lLOlP1glHMDN2021 , dated:'14-10-2021 in application No.04765 3/MED/LT/U6/HMDN2ffi72O21 dated 08.1O.2O21 pursuant to the above mentioned representations, dated 30.05.2022 as .illegal and arbitrary and petitioner's Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1 Xg), 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2022 and cancel the illegal layout of the respondent No.S in survey No.678lPad,679lParl and 680iPart admeasuring an extent of 8895.27 Sq. Meters of Pochampalle Village, Gundla Pochampally Municipality and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgira District, vide Layout permit No.000342 /LO/Plg/HMDtu2021 dated 14-10-2021 in application No.047653iMEDiLTiU6/HMD N28O7 2021 dated O8, 1 0.2021 forthwith,

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 direct the respondent M.4 not to entertain any registrations with regard the layout of the

¶20

of the respondent Nr .5 in survey No.678/Part, 679lParl and^(: 80/Pi Lrt admeasuring an extent of 8895.1 Z Sq. Meters of Pochampalle Village Grlnd a Pochampally Municipality and Mar lal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide La /,rt-tt^pe rmit No.000342 lLOlPlgtHMDN2O2' dated 14-10-2021 in application No 047653/VIED/LT/U6/HM DN2BO72O21 dated )8 10.2021

¶21

IANO:2OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the c r,)umslances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the^petition, the High Court rn,t'r L,e^pleased to direct the respondent No ;2 to consider the representation of the^p etitioner dated 30.05.2022 with reg rrd the layout^permission of the respr rdent No.5 in survey No.678/Part, 679lPa ". and 680/Part admeasuring an extent )'U89I .27 Sq. Meters of Pochampalle Villi;e, Gundla Pochampally Municipality rrrrd Mendal, MedchalMalkajgiri District, vir^,: Layout^permit No.000342lLOlP1glHMa'.tA,t20".1 dated^'14-10- 2021 in application No.047653/MED/LT/U6/HMDA/28O72'CI2'1 daled 08.10.2021 forthwith,

¶23

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the crn;urnst rnces stated in the affidavit filed in s .pport of the petition, the High Court rr,'r)'be^p eased to direct the respondent No.4^rrot to entertain any registrations with rcqard tlre layout of the respondent No.5 in ,;urvey No.678 Pan, 679lParl and 680 F'art a Jmeasuring an extent of 8895.27^:iq. Meters of Pochampalle Village, Oundl;r Pochampally Municipality and Mar^jal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide La,'r.,ul pe'mit No.000342 /LO/P1g/HMDAl2O21 dated 14-10-2021 in application No.C,t;'653/[/ED/LT/U6/HM DN28072O21 dated, 8 10.2021,

¶25

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶26

M/s Minerva Resc ts Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its director. Smt. A lniira, W/o Vijay Vardhan Reddy, C ,:c. Business, Wo H NO.8-2-69312132 ernC 41 , tu ithila Nagar, Road No.'12, Banj rahills, Hyderabad.

¶27

AND

¶28

...pETlTtot,tt,iR/sth ?EspoNoENT

¶29

'1. M/s. Surabhi F rrms, Rep. by its Managing Partner S. lizrthish Rao, S/o Papa Rao, Occ. bu: rness, R/o Villa No.26, Sri Adithya OesagranJe, Opp. Apila Apartments, N, rsingi, Gandipet, Rangareddy Districttio0075.

¶30

... RESPONDENT A'VRI T PETITIONER

¶31

The State of T{ lengana, Represented by lts Principle iScr:rcrtan' (Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

Hyderabad Me r'opolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Cornmissioner, District Comm( rcial Complex, Administrative L Block,^'l-,rnaka, Hyderabad500 007.

¶33

The District Co iector, Medchal Malkajgiri, Medchal Ma ll. a^jgr ri D istrict. 5. The Sub-Regis rar' Medchar Markajsiri' Y:it3'#il5illlll]lill3'"o*o-"r,

¶34

Petition under :)ection 151 CPC praying that in the r;irr;urnstr nces stated in the affidavit filed in sr rport of the petition, the High Court mirr lle pleased to vacate the interim order date | 0810712022 in l.A.No. 1 ot 2022 in W.F.lrlr: . 2t;548 of 2O22,

¶35

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent l,lo.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent l{o.2: SRl. V.NARASIMHA GOUD

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRl. G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶41

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWNG ORDER:

¶42

¶43

THE HON' iLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANI })CiANII

¶44

w UT PETITION No. 2A54A OF 202tz

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

Th :; Writ Petition is filed seeking the lirlkrv;iag reliel .... to issue an appropriate writ or crder ,rr direction u rre particularly one in the nature ,rf rvrit rf mandamus declaring the action of the responderti 2 n considering he representation of the petitioner dated 3C'.,)5.2Or 2 and not car r:elling the illegal layout of the responde:n: No.S n Survey No. :t78lParr, 679/Part and 680/Part admeasuring en extent of 8 195-27 sq.meters of Pochampalle Vitlagp G::nd.a Pochampalll Municipality and Mandal, MedchaL- M rl}:ajg: ri District, vid r l,ayout permit No. OOO342|LO lPlglHMl),\l2O2l, dated l4.LO.2O2l in N r. application 0476s3/ ME .t ILT lU6lHMDAl28O72O2l, dated^rlE. 10.201 I pursuant I r the above mentioned representati,3n.s dat(.d 30.o5.2022 rs illegal and arbitrary and petitioner's constitution al rights guan nteed under Articles 14, 19(1Xe), 21 and 3O()-A :f Constitutior of India and consequently direct the respord€:nts 2 to consider ne representation of the petitioner dated 3O.)5.2O,.2 and cancel he illegal layout of the respondent No.S rn Surv,:y No.678l Par 679 /Part and 68o/Part admearuign an extent trf 8895.27 sq. meterts of Pochampalle Village, Gundla Pochanpal$ Municipaliq and Mandal, Medchal-Malkqigiri District vide layo rt permit NOOOO342/ La /Plg/HMDA/2021 dated. 14.1('.12021 n Application \o. 047653/ MED/ LTl U6/HMDA /28O720',),1 , dat, d 08. 10.2021 lbrthwith and pass such other order or olders th r.t the [{on'ble 'ourt deems fit and proper in the interest of irrstice. '

¶47

Wl en the Writ Petition came up on 08.()'2.2022, this Court has pasr :d the following order in I.A.No. 1 of 20'.12:

¶48

)

¶49

" kamed counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Kiran Kumar submits that the petiti,oner gave the representation to the 2nd r€spondent on 30.05.2022 to cancel the lay out granted in favour of the srh respondent in Survey Nos. 678/Part, 679/Paxr and 68o/Part admeasuring an extent of 8895.27 square meters of Pochampally Village, Gundla Pochampally Municipality and Mandd, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. kamed counsel submits that in the representation, the petitioner has clearly stated that technical draft lay out was granted basing on the misrepresentation made by the unofficial respondent that there is existing road and according to the petitioner, ther€ is no road to reach their lands. He submits ttrat the petitioner fded O.S. No. 2l of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District ar Medical and in the written statement filed by the defendants therein, in para 7, it is stated that the other owners of the land in the vicinity including the petitioner had no access for ingress and agrees to reach the main road leading to GundLa Pochampally Village. barned counsel submits that when a representation is made to t}Ie respondents under Section 22 of the HMDA Act, they are bound to consider the same.

¶50

I-eamed Starding Counsel Sri Narasimha Goud submits that the petitioner has filed the suit in the year 2O2O and he could not obtain any interim order in the said suit. He submits that as the petitioner failed to obtain the ordel he has come up before this Court by filing the Writ Petition. He also submits that the HMDA has issued notice on 22-06.2022 to the unollicial respondent.

¶51

When a representation is given to the respondent authorities complaining that by misrepresentation of facts, permission has been obtained, irrespectire of the fact whether suit is pending or not, they are bound to consider the represelrtatiofl filed before them-

¶52

Hence, the respondent authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3O-O5.N22 duly taking into consideration the explanation to be submitted by ttre unofficial respondent. Till such time, status guo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in all respects."

¶53

Today, learned counsel appearing on either side submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the official

--1

responden s^{haveissued proceedings dated 1O'O8'2O22t'her':by tl:e}

¶58

representa^{ion madeby the petitioner is rejected'}

¶59

The relief sought^{in the Writ Petition is to consirler ttre} represental on^{of the petitioner dated 30'05'2O22' Norr' lhe official} respondent^{have already disposed of the reprcsentation by} proceeding: dated 10-08.2022.^{In the light of the sam':' nothing} remains to^{I e adjudicatedin this WritPetition'}

¶60

5- The Writ Petition is^{therefore, disposedof} 5ivrng^'iberty to the petiti,ner^{to avail an appropriate remedy availablt:trl hiar'No}

¶61

order as to^{( )sts.}

¶62

The miscellaneous^{Applications, if anys'hall stand}

¶63

closed.

¶64

Sd/. L. SH VA PARVATHI A.SSTS'rANT TEGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPY'/

Jilt

sE0'rlolDoFFrcER

To, 1. The Principl^! Secretary^(Municipal Administration), Stat+ of Tel,)ngana, Secretariat,'lyderabad.

¶69

The Commi: sioner Hyderabad Metropolitan Developnrert Authority, District

¶70

Commercial )omplex, Administrative L Block, Tamaka, iyderal)ad- 500 007.

¶71

1. The District^{( :ollector,} Medchal Malkajgiri, Medchal Malka.giri District.

¶72

The SuFRel rstrar, Medchal Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri Distr ct

¶73

Smt. A lndira Wo Vijay Vardhan Reddy, Director, M/s Mirrerua lesorts Pvt Ltd, Occ. Bu: iness, R/o H NO.8-2-69312132 and 41, Miih'la l.lagirr, Road

¶74

No.12, Banja ahills, Hyderabad.

¶75

One CC to S ?1. GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR Advocate [Oi,LJ(;]

¶76

One CC to S^:tl. V.NARASIMHA GOUD Advocate [OPtJt) 8. One CC to S ll G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate IC'PUC

¶77

Two CCs to^(;P FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV,High Coun for the State of

¶78

Telangana. [( UT]

¶79

'l0.Two CCs to ( iP FOR REVENUE , High Court for the Stat,: ol'Tel lngana. Iour]

¶80

1 1. Two CD Copir r;

HIGH COUR T

LKJ

DATED: 2711012022

ORDER

,lti? 'r{E Sr4r t
,i /.t) $>
ll
2: l]i]tl I[2 a.
-),
ti) ,.i<br>\ a

¶86

WP.No.2854l ot 2022

¶87

WP IS DISPC SED OF WITHOUT COST J

M/s. Surabhi Farms v. The State of Telengana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Surabhi Farms v. The State of Telengana

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/s Lamd Mark Developers Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Surya Rao Voora Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mekala Ramakrishnudu Vs The State of Telangana

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

T. Madaru Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Omer Hussain Barzaiq Vs The State of Telangana