Allowed

V. Venkateswara Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, And 3 Others

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022WP/4618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Municipal Corporation order stopping construction activity. The High Court set aside the order directing parties to conduct their own survey, holding it arbitrary during ongoing slab construction.

What did the court decide?

Letter dated 19.02.2021 issued by the Commissioner was set aside. Respondent directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

V. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:46 18 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

V. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late V.B. Raju,^{aged about 66 years,Occupation :} Business, R/o. H.No.B-3-318111116612A, Engineers^{Colony,Jaya PrakashNagar,} Hyderabad.

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{rep. by its Commissioner'} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad^{lVlunicipal Corporation,Tank Bund,} Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary,^{Municipal Administrationand} Urban Development Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶13

4 G.V. Hari Prasad,, R/o. A-105, Vertex Pleasant^{Brindavan EstatesColony,} Nizampet Road, Hyderabad - 500 085.

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in Letter No.l/C20l1^{35'1 6120191130'} dated 1910212021 directing the^petitioner to stop the construction^{activity (despite} the subsistence of construction^permission vide building^permit No.l/C20101 15012O2O, dated 2910112020) in the land in Sy.No.17BlC3,¹⁷⁹¹⁴¹ , 178 and 179 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District, is manifestly arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to interfere^with the construction activity of the^petitioner so long as the construction^permission is subsisting, if necessary by directing the 1st respondent to have the^survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga^Reddy District for demarcation and location of the plot claimed by the 4th respondent as against the land of the petitioner.

¶16

t.A. NO:1 OF²⁰²¹

¶17

I putition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondents^{not to interferewith the constructionactivity of the} p"tition"'inaccordancewiththeconstructionpermissionvidebui|dingpermit lro.irczolor^{1150t2020, dated 29t01t2020in File No.1/C20l1351612019, pendins} disposal of the^writ Petition.

¶18

IA NO: 20F²⁰²¹

¶19

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filedin support of the peiition,ir,e Higl,courtmay be pleased to} ,u.plnJ the^{operation and effect of ti-re letter of the 1st respondent bearingNo.} ttciolrcsrctzotsltgo,^{daled 19lo2l2021in so far as it relates to the restraint on} co-rrstructioninaccordancewiththebuildingpermissionvidebuildingpermit No.1/C20/01115ot2o2o'dated29/01/2020-inFileNo.l/C20l13516/2019in land in sy.No.^{178tc3, 17glA1 , ,178 and 179 of Kondapur village,} ,".p".f "i1n" S-Jingarp"ffy^{N/andal,Ranga Reddy District, pending disposalof the writ} petition.

¶20

l.A.NO :3 OF²⁰²¹

¶21

iPetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the peiition, irre uigrrcourtmay be pleased to} permit me to appear and^{argue as party in person'}

¶22

t.A.NO :4 OF²⁰²¹

¶23

Between:

¶24

G.V.HariPrasad',Fl/o.A-l0s,VertexPleasantBrindavanEstatesColony,Nizampet Road, Hyderabad^{- 500 085.}

¶25

,...PETITION^ER

¶26

ANDⁱ

¶27

1 The Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation,rep by its Commissioner'} Tank Bund, HYderabad

¶28

1. Chief City Planner,^{GreaierHyderabad MunicipalCorporation' Tank Bund'} Hyderabad.

¶29

3.TheStateofTelangana,rep.byitsSecretary,lt/lunicipalAdministrationand-' uinan-oluelopmeit Deianmeht, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

¶30

V. Venkateswara^{Rao, S/o. Late V.B. Raju, aged about 66 years, occltpa-tion} Business,R/o.H.No.8.3-3l9llll16612A,EngineersColony,JayaHraKaSn Nagar, HYderabad.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under section^{151 cPCprayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the orders^{passedin WP No 4618of 2021 daled2510212021'}

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners^{: SRI.VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA, ADVOCATE} FOR SRI.D.B.CHAITANYA

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2: SRI.SAMPATH PRABHAKARREDDY} counsel for the Respondent^{No.3 : G.P FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4 :} "--'

¶36

The Court made the following^ORDER

¶37

I I

¶38

¶39

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICBLALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶40

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.4618 of 2021}

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This writ Petition is^{filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of} the l.trespondent^{in issuing letter dated 19.02.2021 directingthe petitioner to} Stop the construction^{activity,despitethe subsistence of construction} permission, as illegal^{and arbitrary.}

¶43

Mr.Vedula Venkata^{Ramana,leamed senior counsel. representing} Mr.D.B.Chaitanya,^{leamed counseltbr the petitioner, submitsthat tl.re 1'l} respondent by order^{dated19.02.2021has directed the parties to conduct} survey by demarcating^{their plotand submit for frrrther decisiontill that time} the construction shoutd^{be stopped. It is submitted that the directionissued by} the 1., respondent^{restrainingthe petitioneriiom makingconstructionis} arbitrary. It is further^{statedthat the sun,ey and demarcationof the land} cannot be conducted^{by private partiesand it is doneby the competent} authority, therefore,^{order is illegal and arbitrary.The l't respondentitself} must adopt the^{procedureto process survey,identifr and demarcate the land.} It is stated that at^{presentthe slabof the 5tr'flooi is going on. At this stager by} passing such an order directing^{the pafty to collductsurve.v anddemarcate} their own lands^{is highly arbitraryand the same is Iiable to be set aside.}

¶44

¶45

^I \

¶46

¶47

¶48

Mr.sampath^{PrabhakarRed<iy,learnedStanding Counsel'submits that} the 1,t respondent^{after issuing notice, after hearing the parties,after following} the due^{procedureand lookingat the dispute betweenthe partieswith regard} to identity of^{the land an{ withregard to overlapping the plot' has directed the} parties to conduct^{survey anddemarcate their land and in the meantime} directed not^{to proceedwiththe construction'If the constructionis carried} out, the same^{is not in the interests of the parties'Hence' the Commissioner} has passed the^{order directingthe petitioner to stop the construction'}

¶49

'l'he or.der passed by the 1" respondent dated 19'02'2021^{is ex} facie legal as he^{has passedorder directingthe parties to conduct surveyand} demarcate^{and till sucbtime, he has directedthe petitioner to stop the} consrruction.^{If thereis any dispute with regard to overlappingof the plot} rvith approved LRS^{plan, the parties themselvescannot conductand} demarcate their Plot.

¶50

5.Inthatviewofthematter,theWritPetitionisallowedsettingasidethe letter dated^{lg,O2.2O21issuedby the Cornmissioner' The l't respondent is at} liberty to^{pass appropriate orders,in accordance with law withinfour weeks} from today.^{No orderas to costs'}

¶51

Misc ellaneous^a ti n

¶52

SN/.P PADMANABHA^REDDY -- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶53

/iTRUE^COPY//

¶54

SECTION^OFFICER

¶55

'o^{.,. ,nu commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipalcorporation, Tank Bund'}

¶56

,. iil:%fl?"1%itv^{Planner' Greater Hvderabadtvlunicipalcorporation' Tank} and U rban

¶57

. ?iltIY:,Tl,it1"t"^{ot r"tunga na' .M,ullclgalAdministration} , Development^{ouputi'ilnt' Seiretariat'Hyderabad'}

¶58

4 Two CC to^{G.P FOR MUNICIPALADMINISTRATION'High Court for the} Siate otfetangana^{at Hyderabad (OUT)}

¶59

5 One CC to^{SRI.D.B.CHAITANYA' Advocate-IUHUUl} , o 5,# 66 i" 5rii.Se-r',lFArH^{innsHnKAR REDDY' AdvocateIoPUC]} 7 Two CD CoPies

¶60

B One spare^coPY

S.A

SW ,,' QJ

HIGH COURT

D ED:29/03/2022

ORDER

WP.No.4618 of 2021

1 t- i' fc
(
'll
oo 12 b,t?2122
.c
* *
.!i-l l:gO

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

<br>

V. Venkateswara Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkateswara Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Raghavendra Rao Vs The State of Telangana adn 2 others

M/s. Ad-Ways Vs The State of Telangana

Mandal Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Zehara Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Aruna Patil and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt. G. Chandrakala Vs The State of Telangana