Dismissed

Smt. Nerella Divya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/39138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order directing removal of unauthorized construction, the High Court of Telangana examined claims of deemed permission. Finding no illegality in the impugned order due to conflicting evidence regarding applications and pending civil eviction suit, the Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs and miscellaneous applications closed.

Smt. Nerella Divya Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT P ETITION NO: 3 9138 0F 2022

¶8

AND

¶9

Smt. Nerella Divya, Wo. Hemanth. Aoe 34 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H. No.13-1-158, Mattevada, Warangal _ 5'06 00 ...PETITIONER

¶10

The State of Telanoana Repby its principal Secretary, Municipal ^^{4d m in istratio n Depirtment, b"6dLiili, "ri,ri'"*il;'} z. ureater Waranoal Municipal. Corporation, Rep by Commissioner, Waranoal. 3 The Deputv colnmissioner, rniiipei'b-trire:ir, 6[i"i vi-",.Ji,l;iilrrlrii,,r,r.i;r Corporation, Waranoal.

¶11

Smt. Veeramaneni Maniu Latha, Wo.Late V.S.Rao, Aged . Major, Occ. H;;;;k;;'d;, Hou sewife, R/o. Ftar w#;ii"Ji ru o.ha, city iisilodi, warangar uroan x,id n*r"Ai,r?olstrisents, Nakkalagutta,

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tfea ineiewitn, the High'C"-r;;;;;" pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or oir"ltio" roi"i,"niJrr,u'"i"',. the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring tn" action or the respondent" r.r'o: uno 3 .in. .issuin-g the impugned order^"in noc.tto.Cf lCir_ln.p*_232g46t2022 dated 14-10-2022 as iregar, arbitrary anu contraiy io settted principres of raw and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents No.'2 "no i noi to demolish schedule premises bearing H.ilo 1-g-552/1 ,Barasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District in the intereJt of lustice.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, t'ne uigt' court mry oe pi"r"uJ'to :3y^11 rtr.PrE-232946r2022^{jyl!"r.proceedings} datei'd 14-10-2022^{pursuant to the} 0t tne^impugnEd rLifionoent order No.3 p"noing in no".rrjo.C^"di.po'rrr-i TCir_ of the above writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the^petitioner : SRt p. BHASKAR

¶17

g:yT:l.f9L!19 Respondent No.1: Gp FoR MUNtcrpAL ADMtNtsrRATtoN AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY,

¶19

e Hnac €oursel for the Respondent No. 4: sRt AJAY xuffioR r ne uourt made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.39'138 ol 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

¶24

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned order in Roc.No.G 1 /Cir-l/T.P lE-23294612022 dated 1 4-10-2022 as i egat, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law and consequenfly set aside the same and darect responients Nos 2 and 3 not to demolish schedule premises bearing H.No.1-8-552/1 Balasamudram, Hanamkorda, Warangal District".

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.^poluri Bhaskar submits that respondent No.3, by proceedings dated 14-10-2022, has directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of compound wall and shed within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order or else appropriate action will be initiated. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a lessee and when a show cause notice was issued to her, she gave a reply to the respondent Corporation on 04-05-2022, stating that in the month of November, 2016, with the permission of the complainant, she has started alteration and construction works suitable for establishing and running the restaurant business and that there is a civil suit pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.4, who is the owner of the property and basing on his complaint, the whole proceedings were initiated. He

¶26

¶27

LK. J W P No 39138 of 2022

¶28

submits that in fact, the petitioner has made an application on 26-1 1- 2016 seeking construction permission and also paid the amount and as the same was not rejected, it amounts to deemed permission and under the deemed permission, she has completed the construction. Learned counsel submits that without considering all these facts, the respondent Corporation has passed the impugned order.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr. S. Surender Reddy submits that when a notice was given to the petitioner, she has simply submitted a reply stating that with the permission of the respondent Corporation, she has made construction and it is no where stated that she has made an application and under deemed permission, she has carried out the entire constructions.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No.4 Mr. Ajay Kumar submits that as per Clause 8 of the lease deed, lessee is not entitled to make any alterations in the schedule premises without the written consent of the lessor and the lessor shall be entitled to inspect the schedule premises at all reasonable times and the lessee cannot object for the same. He submits that the petitioner has not made any such application seeking permission from the Municipality and even as per the terms of the lease deed also, the lessee cannot make any constructions and contrary to that she made constructions.

¶31

When this matter was moved as lunch motion on 20-10-2022, a payment receipt is filed showing that the application is made by the

¶32

LK. J W.P.No 39138 of 2022

¶33

¶34

t I

¶35

petitioner and when it is submitted about the deemed permission, this Court has directed the respondent Corporation to get instructions in this regard and directed the matter to be listed on 21-10-2022 and tilt such time, an interim order was granted not to take any coercive steps and again on 21-10-2022, at request of the learned Standing Counsel, the matter was adjourned to today and the interim order granted earlier was extended.

¶36

\ \

¶37

Today, when the matter came up, learned Standing Counsel submits that the said website is no more in operation and they cannot have any details from the said website. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will again give a reply to the respondent Corporation giving all the details. When a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, in the reply submitted by the petitioner, no where it is stated that she has obtained permission and she has made application for permission and in view of the deemed permission, she is entitled for the said construction when it is the case of petitioner before this Court that she has made an application seeking permission for making further constructions. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 denies the said fact that,the petitioner has never made such application for construction and further, even as per the lease deed also, the petitioner cannot go ahead with the construction. 7. lt is an undisputed fact that a suit for eviction is pending between the parties. Whatever the inter se dispute between the parties,

¶38

LK, J W P.No.39134 of2022

¶39

¶40

this Court is not concerned. The only issue that falls for consideration is whether the conshuction is made after obtaining permission from the respondent Corporation. The receipt that is relied on by the petitioner is in the name of the owner and it is for the owner to say whether such application is made by her or not, which is denied by the unofficial respondent No.4 and it also supports the reply submifted by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation.

¶41

B. ln that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no illegality in the impugned order which seeks interference of this Court.

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs

¶43

'10. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶44

I I

¶45

SD/.N.SRI ASSISTANT^REGIS /ITRUE^COPY// SECTION FICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 2 3 gflii,ti,t**FJfrift*liiffi^{f $i33;"'""""} 4 5 Two CD^CoPies 6 One SPare^CoPY

Sm SB

HIGH COURT

DArED:2811012022

ORDER

WP.No.39138 of 2022

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

:'.
\I
/:,
2 0 rtl 2$12

¶55

b
\ \n>>-

Smt. Nerella Divya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nerella Divya 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

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

M/s. Surabhi Farms Vs The State of Telengana

T. Madaru Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kursam Seshu Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

B.Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana

Ameena Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others