Disposed

Gurrala Mallesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022WP/8444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed RERA and HMDA to consider a petitioner's representation questioning the legality of a layout permission granted to respondents 7 and 8, noting failure to verify title documents.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 27.01.2021 and pass orders within six weeks after giving reasonable opportunity to the accused owners.

Gurrala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

IVIONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 8444 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

GurralaMallesh,S/o.LateG.Balaiah,Agedabout40years,Occ.Agriculture, R/o. Khajiguda Village, Medchal Mandal, M.M.Dist.

¶8

Gunala Ramesh, S/o. Late G. Balaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Khajiguda Village, Medchal Mandal, M.M.Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mythri Bhavan, Ameerpet.

¶13

The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶15

The Addl. Collector (Local Bodies), Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶16

The Thasildar, Medchal lr/andai, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶17

Thummala Srrnivas Reddy (HUF), S/o, T, Krishna Reddy, Aged about 60 yearq, Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No.239, SA Farm Medows, Kompally, R.R.Dist.

¶18

Rajaiah Kasam, S/o. Kotaiah Kasam, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Business, R/ o. 6-145, Lakshettipet, Adilabad Dist.

¶19

,..RESPONDENTS

¶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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 not cancelling the layout permission No. 100762lMP2lPLGlHMDA/20'14, dt. 16.04.2015 and also RERA registration as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the layout permission No. 10076211\AP2|P LG/HMDA/2014, dt. 16.04.2015 and RERA registration for the land in Sy. Nos. 12P, 13 to 23, 23P, 24 to 26,33 85 34P of

¶21

I Khajguda Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., and orders may be passed accordingly in the interest of^justice.

¶22

IA O: 1 F 2022

¶23

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent No. 2 to^{produce all the documents for the layoutNo.} 1OO762|MP2|PLG/HMDA/2014, dl. 16.04.2015 for the^{purpose obtainingthe} layout on my representation dt.^{21.1 1 .2021 pendingdisposal of the Writ Petition} and orders may be^passed accordingly^{in the interest of justice.}

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to} direct the Respondents 2 and 3 not to change the nature of the^propertyrn pursuance of the layout No. 100762/MP2/PLG/HMDA/2014, dt 16.04.2015 on my representation 28.01 .2022 for cancellation of layout by suspending RERA registration, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and orders may be^passed accordingly in the interest of^justice.

¶26

lA NO:3 OF 2022

¶27

Between:

¶28

Thummala Srinivas Reddy (HUF), S/o. T. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ, Business, R/o. Villa No.239, SA Farm Medows, Kompally, R.R.Dist.

¶29

Petitioner/ Respondent No.7

¶30

AND

¶31

1 Gurrala Mallesh, S/o. Late G. Balaiah, Aged'about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Khajiguda Village, Medchal Mandal, M.M.Dist.

¶32

2 Gurrala Ramesh, S/o. Late G. Balaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Khajiguda Village, Medchal Mandal, M.M.Dist.

¶33

... RespondentsAfu rit Petitioners

¶34

3 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶35

4 The Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mythri Bhavan, Ameerpet.

¶36

6 The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

¶37

6 The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶38

7 The Addl. Collector (Local Bodies), Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.

¶39

B The Thasildar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist

¶40

,,//

¶41

L Rajaial Kasam. Si

¶42

R/b. 6-145, i;i;.bn[31]Xi,,53:3Bl$n"o^{about 75} vears, occ. Business,

¶43

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶44

Petition under Secttor 151,CPc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in permitthepetitionertoiiiethed"";il;i;-i;,''fr;;orof the affidavit fired in suoport of the p"iitioii. ir',L ligh court may be preased to 2022 2) Copy of Reod Sate oeea-ot iS_60_-iOii i"rring Endorsemeniot. Doc. No. 4423 ot ro-os_2013, 3) Copy of Regd A-qreement of Sare .r, c"r"i.r power of Attorney dt.2g-022012 vide Doc No dsstzorz +1 C"py "?^{n""gi.'"n!rg"runtof sare cum ceneral} Power of Attornev atzz_oz_zo^ti rijS'o"..'rrrr"l fi"q,rl.,r,5) Copy of Resd. Sate Deed dt 15-03-20r3 bearing oo", ruo 7+lis,iisu'l coo, of HMDA vidiLr. r.ro. 100162/Mp2/pMG/HrvDA/261j gi oa-_ oi_i;il,'"r; 9.opy or order in w p. No, 34204 of 2021 dt 16-i2_2021 Bl Copy "io;;;,.'in W.p No. 34204 ot zo21 dt. 16-03-2022 and 9) copy of pananiei, !l ,oo]ir"rrl ,rteriar papers.

¶45

Counset for the petitioner(s):SRI. pASHAM KRISHNA REDDY

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No,s. 1,3 to 6 : Gp FOR REVENUE

¶47

Counset for the Respondent No.2:SRt V.NARASIMHA GOUD (SC FOR HMDA) Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 :M/S.MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSASIN

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No. g :NONE APPEARED

¶49

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶50

¶51

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶52

WRIT PETITION No.8444 ot 2022

¶53

ORDER

¶54

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

¶55

"to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in not cancelling the layout permission No.100762/MP2/PLG/HMDAJ2014 dt.16-04-2015 and also RERA registration as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the layout permission No.100762/[,4P2lPLG/HMDA/2014 dt.16-04-201S and RERA registration for the land in Sy.Nos.12P, 13 to 23, 23p, 24 to 26,33 & 34P of Khajguda Village Medchat t\4andat, MedchatMalkajgiri District".

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner I,4r. Pasham Krishna Reddy

¶57

submits that the petitioners gave a representation dated 27 -O1-2021 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and B have obtained the layout permission illegally. He submits that the layout was obtained for the land to an extent of Ac:'13-00 gts, whereas the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and B are the owners of only Ac.6-00 of land. He submits that the respondent No.2-Hl\rlDA, without verifying any of the records and without any basis has granted the layout and hence, the petitioners gave the said representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3, but they failed to consider the same and hence, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶58

¶59

L W.P No.8444 of

¶60

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent^{No.2-HMDA Mr. V.} Narasimha Goud, has filed a counter affidavit and submits^thatthe layout permission was^granted on 16-04-2015 and the^{petitionershave} come up before this Court after a lapse of 7^years. He submits^{that as it} is the case of the petitioners that bogus documents are created,^the petitioners should have approached the competent Court for cancellation of the said documents and between^{the petitioners andthe} unofficial respondents, civil suits are^{pendingwhere they should have} impleaded HN/DA. He submits that the HMDA cannot^{decide these} issues which are beyond the scope and^powers conferred^{on it.}

¶61

The petitioners have taken a specific stand that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and B are the owners of land to^{an extent of Ac:6-00} gts only, whereas the layout permission is obtained in respect of Ac:1 3-00 of land. ln the counter affidavit^{filed by the responden!} Hlt/DA, the said averment is not adverted to^{as pointed out by the} learned counsel for^petitioner. As far as the title^{and other things are} concerned, they cannot be decided by^{this Court and the petitioners} can agitate before the competent Court.^{Whereasit is the specific case} of the petitioners that there are no documents^{of title in favour of the} unofficial respondents in respect of the land to^{an extentof Ac.13-00} gts. ln that view of the matter, the petitioners approaching the Court with the delay cannot come in the way of^{this Court.The respondent} No.2-HMDA has an obligation to look al the^{primafacle titleand further,}

¶62

LK, J W P.No.8444 of 2022

¶63

they have also failed to state in the counter what are the documenls that were considered while granting permission to the unofficial respondents. Hence, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 27_01-202,1 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and B.

¶64

Accordingly, the Writ^petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶65

6 Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petitaon, shall stand closed.

¶66

<br>

¶67

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY' v'i/

¶68

S ECTION OFFICER

¶69

To,

¶70

The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶71

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Mythri Bhavan, Ameerpet.

¶72

a The Commis_sio,ner,Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Masabtank, Hyderabad. 4. The District Collector, Medchal-Maikalqiri bist. i The Addl Collector (Local Bodies), N/b-dcha t-Ma lkaiq iri Dist. 6. The Thasildar, Medchat Mandal, Medchal-MalkaiqliiOlst. 7.o.one CC to SRl. PASHAM [Bl_SttNA REDDY ad"vociie topuc] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE , High Court for the SGte of-Glangana. louTl

¶73

o10 one CC to SRr V.NARASil,!{4.gqpq (SC_tqR HMDA) Advocate [opUC] 11 One Two CC CD Copies.to M/S.MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSnStru, Ravo6ate tOpU-Cj-^{- -'} 12 One Spare Copy.

\ P

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 0t10t2022

_
2l tiT ?lu

ORDER

WP.No.8444 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS. @ 6 ')r^ "

Gurrala Mallesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurrala Mallesh 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

Kommu Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Koyya Surya Kiran Vs State of Telangana

Vigneswara Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

Naluguri Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mrs. Farheen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Rahim Bin Hussain Vs The state of Telangana and 4 Others