Disposed

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari v. State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC24 Mar 2022WP/7328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a writ petition challenging the inaction of local authorities regarding illegal construction on disputed land. The bench observed that pending civil disputes do not absolve official respondents of their statutory duty and directed them to pass final orders within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pass final orders on the illegal construction matter within ten days from the date of the order, duly giving an opportunity to all parties.

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF^IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA^KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7328 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, S/o Late S.P^{Tiwari, Occ: Business, Aged about 53 years,} Rl o23-3-497, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Secretary, Municipal Administrationand Urban} Development, Secretariat Buildings,^{Hyderabad-500022.}

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep by its Secretary,^{Panchayat Raj and Rural} Development, Secretariat^{Build i} ngs,^{Hyderabad- 500022.}

¶12

Narsingi Municipality, Rep by its^{Municipal Commissioner, NarsingilVlunicipal} Office,Narsingi, Gandipet lvlandal,^{Hyderabad- 500089.}

¶13

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development^{Authority, Rep bLitsMetropolitan.} C6mmissioner, Block A, Dlstrict Commercial^{Complex,Tarnaka, Hyderabad -} 500007.

¶14

Smt V Shilpa Reddy, W/o Ravikanth^{Reddy, Aged about40 years,} occ: Business, Rl/o H. No. 1-2-304, Flat^{No. 203, Arvind Residency,} Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol the 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 and more^{particularlyone in the nature} of writ of Mandamus or^{any other writ declaring the failureof the Respondents} No. 3 and 4 in taking any action^{againstthe illegal construction being carried out} by the Respondent No. 5^{on the land in Sy No. 66/EE, situatedat} Vattinagulapally Village,^{Ranga Reddy District (Subjectland) pursuantto the} Petitioners representations^{dated o5lo7l2o21} ,^{2011012021and 0410112022 as} being arbitrary, illegal, in^{contravention of the order dated 1710612021 in wANo.} 189 oI 2021, and^{u nco} nstitutio^{nal and consequently direct the Respondents No.}

¶17

3 and 4 to forthwith take action against the^{illegal construction being carried out} on the Subject land.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent No. 3 to file^{a report beforethis Hon'bleCourt containing} (i) particulars of the action taken by Respondent No.3^{against the illegal} construction undertaken by Respondent^{No. 5 on the Subject land, (ii) lnspection} report with^photographs of the^{nature of construction carried out by Respondent} No. 5 on the subject land;⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ Particulars^{of the building permission/ sanctioned} plans sanctioned in favour of Respondent 5 for construction on the^Subjectland by the Vattinagulapally Gram^{Panchayat or the Respondent No. 3 alongwith the} extent of the Subject land for which such^{permissions were sanctioned.}

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent No. 3 to^{forthwith consider the representationsof the} Petitioner daled 0510712021 ,2011012021^{and 0410112022and therebytake action} against the illegal construction being^{carriedout by the Sth Respondenton land} in Sy No. 66/EE, situated at Vattinagulapally Village,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. AVINASH DESAI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : SRI Y RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA^KANNEGANTI WRIT P ION No. 7328 of2o22

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a^mandamus declaring the faiiure of Respondents 3^{and 4 in taking action} against the i11ega1 construction^{being carriedout by the 5th} respondent on the land in Survey^{No. 66/EE situatedat} Vattinaguiapally Village, Ranga^{Reddy District, pursuant to the} petitioner's representations dated^{O5.O7.2O2 l,20. lO.2O2l and} 04.O1.2022 as arbitrary^{and illegal and in contravention of the} order dated 17 .06.2021^{in Writ AppealNo. 189 of 2021.} 2. The case of the^{petitioheris that he is the absolute} owner of the^property admeasuring^{Acs. 4'04guntas in Survey} No. 66/EE in Vattinagulapally^{Village having purchased the} same by way of a registered^{sale deed dated 06'12'20O5' It is} submitted that when the^{unofficialrespondent madeiliegal} constructions on the^{subject 1and, contrary to the building} permission dated 27.02.2019,^{the petitioner submittedthe} representation but^{the same was not considered, hence, he filed} Writ Petition No.^{13386 ol 2019. In the said Writ Petition, this} Court by order dated^{lO.O7.2O 19 directedthe respondents to} issue notice to^{the private parties and not to allowany} construction if^{no building permission was granted'It is stated}

¶32

¶33

that the said Writ Petition is^pending adjudication^{before this} Court and again, another representation was^{given by the} petitioner on 3O.07.2019 to the 3'd respondent^pointing out that the 5s respondent is continuing with the illegal constructior-l despite the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition^No. 13386 of 2019. A contempt case was also filed on 19.08.2O19, wherein the petitioner came to know about the^renovation permission dated 27.02.2019. When a show cause notice was issued by the official respondents, the sth respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 17548 of 2Ol9 seeking to set a side the show cause notice. This Court on 16.08.2019 disposed of the said Writ Petition observing that the petitioner had already submitted explanation to the impugned notice on 06.08.2019 and the respondents were directed^{not to} take any coercive action without passing final orders^by considering the explanation submitted by the^petitioner and also giving an opportunity of personal hearing, if necessary, as required under iaw.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Avinash Desai submits that though the order was passed on 16.08.2019 in Writ Petition No. 17548 of 2019, till now, the respondents have not passed any final orders nor have initiated

¶35

¶36

7t !

¶37

any action, as directed by this Court, against the illegal constructions made by the unofficial respondent.

¶38

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Sri N. Praveen Kumar submits that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4670 of 2O2O questioning the illegal construction made by the Sth respondent and when the said Writ Petition was dismissed uide ord,er dated 08.03.2021 observing that if the final orders are not passed till date, the authorities are obligated to do so in compliance with the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17548 of 2019. It is stated that against the said order, Writ Appeal No. 189 of 2021 was Iiled and the said Appeal was disposed of on 17.06.2027 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach Respondents 3 and 4 against the illegal construction, so that they can take action. The learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of this pending litigation and as they are all interconnected, they could not pass any final orders. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that within a period of ten days from today, the respondent Municipaiity will pass final orders on the notice dated 20.07.2019.

¶39

The learned counsei appearing for the unofficial respondent submits that civil disputes are^pending between the

¶40

¶41

parties and in view of^{the same,the petitioneris comingbefore} the Court by^{filing one Writ Petition after the other'}

¶42

Heard learned^{counsel on eitherside and perused} the material on record.^{Whatever may be the civil disputesthat} are pending between^{the parties, by virtue of the orderspassed} by this Court on^{16.08.2019 in Writ PetitionNo' 17548of 2019'} the official respondents^{are boundand ought to have passed} Iinal order and^{the reason stated that they couldnot pass} orders in view^{of the pendency of the Writ Petitions and the Writ} Appeal has no nexus^{for passing the final ordersb1' the} respondents. Hence,^{the said contentiondeservestobe} rejected.

¶43

Recording the^{submissionof the learnedStanding} Counsel, the Writ^{Petition isdisposed ofdirecting the} respondents to^{pass finalorders withinten days from today' in} accordance with^{law, dulygiving opportunity to all the parties'} There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶44

The miscellaneous^{Applications,if any shall stand}

¶45

closed.

¶46

SD/-T.KRISHNA^KUMAR ASS ISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

l.TheTelanganaSecretary,stateofMunicipalAdministrationandUrban Development, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad-500022'}

¶50

z. ihe secretary,^{panchayatRa.iand Rural Development,secretariatBuildings,} State of Telangana,^{Hyderabad- 500022'}

¶51

ihe Municipalbommiisioner,^{Narsingi [,Iunicipality, Narsingi MunicipalOffice,} Narsingi, Gandipet^{Mandal, Hyderabad- 500999}

¶52

+. ifre fr/ Jtiopolitan^{Commissioner, HyderabadMetropol itan Development} Authority, block^{R, DistrictCommercial Complex,Tarnaka'Hyderabad-}

¶53

¶54

Smt V Shilpa Reddy, Wo Ravikanth Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 1-2-304, Flat No. 203, Arvind Residency, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶55

One CC to SRl. AVINASH DESAI Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUN|C|PAL|TY, Advocate[OPUC]

¶57

B. One CC to SRI Y RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA, Advocate[OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GO FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶59

Two CCs to GP FOR IMCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTJ

¶60

'11.Two CD Copies

¶61

12.One Spare Copy

SB SW

\l>

1 )

HIGH COURT

DATED:2^410312022

ORDER

WP.No.7328^{ot 2022}

STAre,
1
(
oo rtt $fl[fl
i
Ji
Dc.i'
.,.-,

¶71

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari v. State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari v. State of Telangana and 4 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

Mohannmed Imran Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Smt. B. Rudramma Vs The State of Telangana

M. Ganga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

V.Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Sagarla Pavan Vs The State of Telangana

Sowmya Apartment Owner s Association Vs The State of Telangana