Allowed

Aavula Sowmya v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/7007/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a revocation of building permission. Citing a previous batch order (W.P. No. 20398 of 2021), the court set aside the impugned order, directed the respondent to pass orders in accordance with law, and directed the petitioner not to proceed with construction.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the writ petition, setting aside the revocation order dated 13.01.2022, and directing respondents to follow guidelines of W.P. No. 20398 of 2021 and pass orders within law.

Aavula Sowmya Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7007 OF²⁰²²

¶6

Between:

¶7

Aavula Sowmya, W/o. A. Naveen Kumar, Aoed about 38 vears,^Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H.No 8-3-231121128, Sri Kiishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner,} Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Greater Hyderabad^{N/unicipalCorporation,Rep.by its Dy. Commissioner,} Cir-19, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 oI^{lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in the natureof Writ} of lvlandamus by declaring^{the actionof the RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 in issuing} the revocation Lr.No. 118780/GHMC/1885812021 ,^{dl. 13.01.2022of petitioner's} property H.No. 8-3-253, Yousufguda Basthi, Hyderabad,^{without followingdue} process of law as illegal, arbitrary, and violative^{and consequently direct the} respondents to cancel the revocation^{letterdt. 13.01 .2022.}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent No. 1 and 2^{not to interfere in the Petitioner houseproperty H.No.} B-3-253, Yousufguda Basthi,^{Hyderabad,by suspending revocationletter dt'} 13.01 .2022 pending disposal of the^{WritPetition'}

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOHIR BHASKAR^REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondentsr SRI PASHAM^{KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR GHMC} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HON'BLE SIVIT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in issuing the revocation^Letter No.11878O/GHMC/ 18858/202 1 dated 13.O1.2022 for construction of a residential building ground floor⁺ 1^upper floor in 52 sqare yards at house bearing 8-3-253, Yousufguda Basthi, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrar5r and violative of^the principles of natural justice.

¶22

Heard Mr. Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel^for the petitioner and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy,^learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.^{A11 the} learned counsels submit that the issue in this Writ Petition^is squarely covered by the order dated 13.12.2021 in writ^Petition No. 20398 ol 2021 and batch, wherein this Court considered the issue at length and at paras 12 and 13 directed^{as under:}

¶23

" 12. ln view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that in order to justify the action taken by the respondent authorities in revoking the building permission of the^petitioners, they^ought to have acted fairly and in strict adherence to the^{principles of} natural^justice. However, since the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the impugned^revocation letters passed against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings,^the said submission is placed on record. The impugned revocation letters passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings, in terms ol submissions made

¶24

W.P.N0.7007 of 2022

¶25

¶26

by the learned Special Government Pleader. The petitioners are directed to submit their explanations to the objections pointed out in the impugned revocation Ietters to the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from today. On such submission of explanations by the petitioners, the respondent authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of TS-bPASS Act and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such explanations. In case, if no orders are passed by the respondent authorities within the time indicated above, there shall be deemed approval of the applications of the petitioners filed for construction of buildings. It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent authorities within the time prescribed on the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the petitioners shall not proceed with any type of constructions in their respective subject lands.

¶27

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 32665 of 2O2 1 that the revocation order was passed without recording any objections, the respondent authorities are directed to bring the objections to the notice of the petitioner therein within a period of one week from today; and on receipt of such objections, the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the said objections u,ithin two weeks thereafter; and on submission of such explanation by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are entitled to pass apprbpriate orders in accordance $,ith the provisions of TSbPASS Act ai-rd the Rules made thereunder within one rveek from the date of receipt of such explanation. ln case, if no orders are passed by the respondent authorities within the time indicated above, there sha11 be deemed approval of the application of the petitioner fi1ed for construction of building. It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent authorities within the time prescribed on the explanations submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner shall not proceed with any type of constructions in his subject land."

¶28

In view of the above, the Writ petition is aliowed

¶29

¶30

W.P.No.7007^{of 2022}

¶31

¶32

setting aside the^{revocation order dated 13 'Ol '2022 'The} respondents are^{directed to follow the guidelines/directions} issued by this^{Court in Writ Petition No' 20398 of 2O2l and} batch, dated^{13.12 2O2l and pass orders in accordancewith} law. There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶33

4 The Miscellaneous^{Applications,ifany shall stand}

¶34

automaticallY^closed'

¶35

SD/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGTSTRAR

¶36

//TRUE^COPY//

¶37

SECTTON^OFFICER

¶38

to''r. ,n" Commissioner'Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation'^Tankbund' Hyderabad' er' Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation'^cir-19' 2. The^{DY. Commtsston}

¶39

,3'.1"tt?i:1l?ffi^{,n,T-:$alE?,,;.i:JsT3J"J-',n,%Advocate}

¶40

One^{CC to SRI PASI}

¶41

toPUCl

¶42

C . Two CD^CoPies'

¶43

One^{sPare coPY'}

NPLS VJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 210412022

c TA r€:
1
q
oo 10 JUN 2sI2 o!
* r:
vsey

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.7007 of 2022

¶50

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶51

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶52

}ou[,"'

Aavula Sowmya v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aavula Sowmya v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Yadagiri Rani Bai Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and 7 others

K. Pedda Raji Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mohammed Farooq Uddin. Vs The State of Telangana

E.Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Syed Sulaman Yamani Vs The State of Telangana