Allowed

A. Srinivas Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2022WP/3636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority's order dismissing objections to a layout application. The Court set aside the order as arbitrary because the Authority failed to consider pending civil litigation and findings regarding lack of possession by the applicants, directing it to reconsider under Section 22 of the HMDA Act.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 19.04.2022 and directing the HMDA to consider the petitioners' representation under Section 22 of the Act pending civil litigation.

A. Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB,AD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3636 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Srinivas Goud, S/o. Late A. Pandu Goud, Aged about 44^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 18-5-851 , Lal Daruaza, Hyderabad.

¶9

A. Venkatesh Goud, S/o- Late A. Balaiah, Aged about 50^years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 13-1-281 , Rajdharkhampet, Mangalghat, Hyderabad.

¶10

A. Suresh Goud, S/o. Late A. Balaiah, Aged about 44^yeats, Occ. Business, Rr/o. H. No. 7O3lBl137 , Marutnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...pETlTlONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Dev. Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Hyderabad Metropolitan Dev. Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Maitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

? The Sub Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District.

¶15

4 Yeluka Lalitha @ Alka Lalitha, Wo. Y. Shankaraiah, Aged about 59^years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. 5-107, Kongarakhurd Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by her SPA Holder, Smt. Akula Ramya D/o. Sri. Akula Kondaiah, Aged about 28^years, Occ. Pvt. Service, Flio. Flat No. 107, Ganapathy Homes, Dilsukhnagar Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

5 Smt. Akula Ramya, D/o. Sri. Akula Kondaiah, Aged about 28^years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o. Flat No. 107, Ganapathy Homes, Dilsukhnagar Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

t) M/s. Destiny Realtors, Rep. by its Managing Partners, Syed Ahmed Dharmani Sio. Late Syed Ahmed Habeeb, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 12-2-712, Suite No. 1305, Avalon Heights, Nanal Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶18

7 Francis David, S/o. Late A.S. Francis, Aged about 63 years, OccFrancis David S/o. Late A.S. Francis, Aged about 63 years, Oc. Business, R/o. H. No. 43-430111A, Plot No. 1, RTC Colony, Beside Play Ground, Moula all' Hvderabad - 500 040'

¶19

...RES'.NDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly that of the 2nd Respondent in not taking appropriate steps to revoke/ keep in abeyance the layout allegedty released at the instance of unofficial Respondents in

¶21

pursuance of the orc ers of Learned Single Judge in W.P No. 1612612021 dated 06.05.202'1 , whi :h was set aside by the Hon'ble Divisiorr []ench as^per the orders in W.A. No. t 6912021, dated 31 12.2021. lnspite of the notice dated 01 .01 -2022 addresse I to 2nd Respondent, also markine a copy of 3rd Respondent wherein t re orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench was also enclosed is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illeg:rl and voilative of Articles 14, 19 (t ) (S), 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct tte 2nd Respondent to revoke/keep in abeyance the layout application for which was submitted by Respondents 4 and 5 on 6.5.2021 in respect of land bearin I Sy.No.B2lA111 , admeasuring 2'l ,680 Sq. Yards (Ac.6-00), situated at Kongaral hurd (A) Village, Maheshwaram Mardal, R.R. District, consequence of a re[ resentation by the Petitioner dated 05.C1 .2022 referring to the orders dated 3'1 . 12.2021 in W.A. No. 66912021 .

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the 2nd Respor rdent to coordinate and issue appropriatr: instructions to 3rd Respondent, calling r ipon the 3rd Respondent not to entertain any document for registration, if preser led by Respondents 4 to 7 in respect of any portion of land admeasuring 21,680 Sq. Yards (Ac.6-00 Gts.), situated al Kongarakhurd (A) Village, Maheshware m Mandal, R.R. District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petil ioners: SRI K. SRINIVASAN

¶25

Counsel for the Resl rcndent No.1: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADNIINISTRATION AND URABAN DEVELOPIIENT

¶26

Counsel for the Resl rondent No.2: M/s. D. MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel forthe Res rondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Res rondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI M.P. CHANDRA MOULI SENIOR

¶28

C OUNSEL REPRESENTING FOR SRI TAIII,IN G. REDDY Counsel for the Res rondent No. 6: SRI M.A.K. MUKHEED Counsel forthe Res >ondent No.7:----

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

IION'BLF], SN{T. JUSTICE LALIT'IIA KANNEGANTI

¶31

WRI'I' PE'I'ITION No.3636 of 2022

¶32

ORDEII:

¶33

This writ petition is f-rled seeking the following reliefl

¶34

" ...to issue a'Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly that of the 2,d Respondent in not taking appropriate steps to revoke/ keep in abeyance the layout allegedly released at the instance of unofficial Respondents in pursuance of the orders of Learned Single fudge in W.P.No.761Z6/2021 dated 06.05.2027, which was set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench as per the orders in W.A.No.669/2021, dated 31.12.2021- [n spite of the notice dated 01.01.2022 addressed to 2nd Respondent, also marking a copy of 3rd Respondent wherein the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench was also enclosed is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and voilative of Articles 1a, 19(11(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to revoke/keep in abeyance the layout application for which was submitted by Respondents 4 and 5 on 06.05.2027 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.82/A1/1, admeasuring 21,680 Sq. Yards (Ac.6.001, situated at Kongarakhurd [A)^{Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R.District consequenceof a} representation by the Petitioner dated 05.07.2022 referring to the orders dated 3 t.12.2021 in W.A.No.669 / 2O27"

¶35

Sri K.Srinivasan, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submits that this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners and to revoke /keep !t] abeyance the lay-out application, which was submitted by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 06.05.2021, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.82lA/1, admeasuring 21,680 Sq.Yards, equivalent to Ac.6.00 acres situated at Kongarakhurd (A), Village, Maheshwaram Mandal. R.R. District. This Court on 08.02.2022

¶36

¶37

passed an ord:r directing the office to list tl.ris writ petition along with W.P.No. 6126 of 2021 and in the mean tinr(:, thc respondents are directed t,r consider and dispose of the representation of the petitiorrers d rted 01.01.2022. Leamed counsel submits tl.rat thereafter the retitioners have given several reprer;entations and the said represent rtions were rejected by the official rr:spondents, wl.rich nrade them to come before this Court by filing \4r.P.No.2495312022. He subrnits tlLat the 5th respondent, claiming to be an agreementholder of the^,,'h respondent, filed O.S.No.9l of 2Q2O ar-rd along with the suit, an i rterlocutory application was filed sreeking ternporary injunction. Lritially injunction was granted orL 21.08.2020 and thereafter the said injunction was vacated on 26.03.2021 . Against that order, tho 56 respondent has filed C.M.A.Irto.48 of 2021 and this Court hns granted an order of status quo by order dated 02.04.2021. -{e further submits that the 4tr'resf,ondent herein has filed W.P.Nc .12787 of 2021 for release of sale deed in respect of the subject lrnd and obtained an interim order dated 22.10.2021. The petitionr,rs herein were not made parties in W.P.No.12787 of 2021. Questioning^{the order dated22.10.2021 passedin}

¶38

-l

¶39

W.P.No. 12781 of 2021 , the petitioners filed W.A.No.588 of 202 I and by order dated 08.11.202 1, thc Division Bench has disposed of the said writ appeal and the matter was remanded to the learned Sirrgle Judge. In W.P.No .16126 of 2OZl filed by the 4'r' respondent, there was a direction by the Learned Single Judge to release the layout as per the application of the petitioner i.e., 4'r' respondent herein dated 06.05.2021. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed W.A.No.669 of 2021 and by order dated 31.12.2021, the Hon'ble Division Bench has set aside orders of the leamed Single Judge dated 30.07.2021 and the parties were directed to approach the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the Division Bench took an exception on the conduct of the 4tl' respondent in not impleading the petitioners in the said writ petition. He submits that the unofficial respondents have not stated in any of the writ petitions about the suit filed by the 5th respondent and the interim order initially being granted and thereafter the said order being vacated and further filing of C.M.A.No.48 of 2021. There are categorical findings by the Civil Court with regard to the forged/fabricated documents and the fact that the unofficial respondents are not in

¶40

¶41

possession of hc property and u,ithout disclosing of ali these facts, writ petitions ; re being fllcd and also Illed an application before the HMDA seeki rg lay-out permission. It is subrnitted that the petitioners l.ra re given sevcral representations cated 3I.07.2021, 18.12.2021 anl 01.O1.2022. In the representation dated 31.07.2021 the petitioners have catcgorically mentioned aborrt all the pending litigations an, I the findings of the civil Court. with regard to possession anr I all other aspects. Basing on the represer-rtation made by the petiticners dated 19.05.2021, the respondent HMDA has passed the order 19-O4.2022, wherein it is observerl that:

¶42

"Ir this regard, it is to inform as per Se<:ti,x 53(a) of HMDA I .c1., 2OO8 "Any dcvelopment permission, No^()bjection Certificat: or other clearance given under this Act shall be construec from the planned development point ol-'ricw and shall ill Il0 IIIay either confcr the owners/tip rights or affect the ownershi r under the land revenue laws. The Metropolitan Developr rent Authority shall stand absolved of rLlly ownership disputes or discrepancies".

¶43

Fu rther in vicw of Section 53(4) of HNIDA Act, the permissi< n granted wi[[ not confer any title on the irpplicant nor it will take lway any persons right over the land and thc: HMDA has to consic er the application for grant of developrn:nt pcrmission

¶44

¶45

on lnerils leaving thc objectors frec to approach an appropriate lorurn lirr rctlress of'their grievancc.

¶46

Funhcr it is to inform that this office has not received any spccific orders from the Hon'ble Court relraining HMDA from issuing layout pennission or canceling the layout permission.

¶47

In view of the above, since the final order in W.P.No.2 I 469 /2O2O & W.P.No.3636 of 2021 are pending and as per Section 53(4) HMDA Act,2008, the complaints filed by you vide reFerence l"t and 4'h cited, are hereby dismissed, as there are no ments.

¶48

Further it is to inform that this office will take l'urther action based on the final outcome of the Hon'ble High Court orders in W.P.No.2l469 of 2OZO & W.P.No.3636 of 2O21."

¶49

Leamed counsel submits the reSpondent HMDA has passed the order without even looking at the representation of the petitioner and without properly appreciating tlle grounds raised by the petitioners. He submits that under Section 22 of the HMDA Act, the HMDA may revoke any perrnission issued under the Act where it is found that by obtaining or by making any false statement or mis-representation or suppression of material fact. The petitioners have placed the material before the official respondents that there is suppression of fact and mis-representation. But, the official

¶50

(.t

¶51

respondentsr without corlsidering the represcntation of the petitioners dat:d 19.05.202 l, in propcr perspectivo by only quoting 53(4) of HMt,A Act, has disposed ol the represr:ntation, which is highly arbitrarr and illegal

¶52

Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.P.Chandra Mouli, representing Sri Tarun G.l'-eddy, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, submits that I he petitioners have not question ed tl-re draft lay-out that is grante 1 in favour of the 4tr' respondent. Furlher, the 2"d respondent hes considered as per the power veste<l with them and they have nr authority or^jurisdiction to consider the disputed questions of act and cannot decide the title disputes between the parties. He :,ubmits that if the petitioners are zrggrieved by such order passed by the 2nd respondent, they have to approach the competent cir il Court questioning the said permission granted to the 4e responden l. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the order passed by the Divisron Bench of this Court in W.A.No.760 of 2018 and I.A.No.1 of 1018 and submits that the GHMC cmnot conclusively adjudicate di,;puted question of title and hence, the said writ appeal

¶53

¶54

was disrnissed.

¶55

Heard lean.red counsel on either side and perused the rnaterial on record. A perusal of tl.re order of the Civil Court in I.A.No.241 of 2020 in O.S.No.9l of 202O, wherein the interim injunction granted on2l .08.2020 is vacated, it is observed that:

¶56

Il. Further the counscl for the respondent filed Ex.R26 i.e., Judgment in CC No.42 4 of 2oll which is showing that Shankaraiah./A.l wlro is the husband of Yelka Lalitha along with 9 others convicted opining that the Dy.Tahasildar issued ORC without following procedure and the ORC is a fabricated one and otrtained by fraud.

¶57

Further the counsel for respondent filed the Gazetle publication which is showing that the entire land in Sy.No.82 belongs to Wakf board i.e., Ex.R35 on such publication he also filed Writ Petition No.27308 of 2007 .and W? No.21059/2O07 dated 22.04.2009 i.e., Ex.R39.

¶58

From the above discussion this Court opined that till now it is not decided whether the suit schedule property belongs to Wakf board or not.

¶59

The counsel for respondent filed Ex.R37 i.e., proceeding No.B/2273/2O20 dated 05.01.2021 which is showing that on the application of A.Srinivas Goud dated O2.Ol.2O2l and 22.09.2017, on the instructions of RDO, Kandukur O2.Ol.2O2l passed the endorsement stating that "on verification of concerned file, the

¶60

¶61

applicant Yclka Srinivas Goud, S/o.Pandu Gourl has tllcd an applicatiorL for restoration ol ontrics in Sy.No.82 lo thc cxtcnt of Ac.l1.17 ;;untas. Thc subject land is notiiicd as Wakl'land as pcr the Gazett: No.6 dated 08.02.2007 and also listcd ir, 22A registcr of Konga akurdh A village, the then Tahsildar, Ir.,faheshwararn was alrea ly issued an endorsement vide file No.Bi2373l2O19, dated 03.( 9.201 9 and copy of acknowlcdgment reoc ived from Sri A.Srinivar Goud again vide relerencc 1'1 citcd A.sirjnivas Goud lras rcquer ted for cancellation of Pattcdar Pass No.'I 0-5 160190202 in the nan re of Yelka Lalitha, w/o.Lalitha. Fudher on verilication of on-lin€ Pahani of Kongarakurd A village Yclka L.alitha name was alrca, [y deleted in on line and pattedar pass boc,k is cnacellcd against th e Sy.No.S2 situated within the liits of Kongarakurd A village.

¶62

Cc nsidering the latest order on 05.0 I .20 2 I by MRO, Maheshw aram this court opined that Yclka Lal;tha is not in possessio r of the petition schedule land and her nirme is deleted earlier.

¶63

Ur der these circumstances, Y.elka Lalitirrr cannot give vacant pr )ssession to the petitioner. No documerrt filed by the petitioner to show her possession.

¶64

Hr nce, the injunction order which is passed on 21.08.2020 is vacate, [.

¶65

In the result, thc petition is disrnissed.

¶66

Tlrereafter, C M.A is preferred and order of statu:; ozo is granted by the Court. lhe observation of the Court is rhat the unofficial

¶67

¶68

¶69

respondents are not in possession of the properly and in C.M.A. only an order of stattts quo is passed, which is a crucial aspect. The finding tl.rat the unofficial respondent is not in possession of the property is undisturbed as of now. The respondent HMDA ought to i have taken into consideration whether at the time of filing of the application the unofTicial rcspondents have disclosed about the pending proceedings between tl're parties. The order impugned appears to be without application of rnind and they have passed this order as a mere fonnality. When the representation contains several material aspects, notl.ring has been discussed by the HMDA. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the order dated 19.04.2022 l;,as no legs to stand and has to be set aside.

¶70

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 19.04.2022 and the respondent HMDA, taking into consideration the pending civil litigation between the parties, shall consider the representation of the petitioners in the light Section 22 of the HMDA Act and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such

¶71

¶72

time, there sha tl be an order of stcttus quo. N<t or<lt:r as to costs

¶73

N4iscella reous applications, pending if an1., shrrll stand closed

¶74

Sd/. P.PADMANABHA RE

¶75

ASSrSiTAN'r REGTST^AR

//TRUE COPY/i

Sf:Cl'lON FICER

To,

'1 . The Prl. Secret rry, Municipal Administration and Urban Dev. Department, State of Telang ana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissk ner,Hyderabad Metropolitan Dev. Authority, fvlaitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyd -,rabad. 3. The Sub Regis rar, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District. 4. One CC to Sri K. Srinivasan, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to G⁾ for Municipal Administration and Urban [)e:velopment, High Court for he State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to M/s D. Madhavi, SC for HMDA [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri [arun G. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri vl.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate IOPUC] 9. Two CCs to GI'for Revenue, High Court for the State of felangana at Hyderabad.^.OUTI 1O.Two CD Copie; 1 1 . One Spare Co ry sm *.)x

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311012022

ORDER

WP.No.3636 of 2O22

, ALLOWING THE WI WITHOUT COSTS

A. Srinivas Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Srinivas Goud 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

SVs Advaith Homes Vs The State of Telangana

Ravu Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

V.G.Gyaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Cheeti Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Sajeed Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

A. Srinivas Goud and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others