Disposed

Sri Komatireddy Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC27 Apr 2022WP(PIL)/29/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a PIL regarding illegal hotel construction and private petitions seeking demolition restraint and regularisation without costs, directing authorities to pass final orders within 45 days and refrain from coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pass final orders within 45 days; prohibition on coercive demolition pending such orders; no order as to costs.

Sri Komatireddy Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WP(PIL) NO: 29 OF 2021 & WP.NO. 14606 OF 20 20

¶7

WP(PIL) No: 29 of 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Komatireddy Venkat Reddy, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Plot No.16, HUDA Heights, Road No.l2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶15

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HIUDA), Represented by its Commissioner, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶17

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

Turkayamjal Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

Hotel Tulips Grand, Represented by its Manager H No 2-12l3 Sagar Highway Ragannaguda Turkayamjal Abdullapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District 501 510 Respondent No 8 is Suo Moto lmpleaded as^per Court Order Dated 2510312021 in WP(PIL) No 29 of 2021

¶20

K Laxma Reddy, S/o Late Rami Reddy Aged about 66 years Occ Business Rl/o H No 567 Ragannaguda Abdullapurmet Mandal Ranga Reddy Oistrict

¶21

T Ashok Goud. S/o Late Pentaiah Aged about 62^years Occ Business R/o Sri Nagar Colorry H No 299 Kammaguda Abdullapurmet Ranga Reddy District

¶22

11.S Sanjeeva Rerldy, S/o Late Rami Reddy Aged about 62 years Occ Business R/o^'183/A Nagarjuna Colony Ragannaguda Hayathnagar Ranga Reddy l.)istrict

¶23

K Sathayya, S/o Late Pochaiah Aged about 55 years Occ Business R/o Sri Ram Nagar,Solony Plot No 164 Turkayamjal Abdullapurmet Mandal Ranga Reddy Il istrict

¶24

(R-3 is deleted :s per Court Order dt. 25.3.21 .)

¶25

(Petitioner in \A/P No 14606 of 2020 have been impleaded as respondent No^g to 1 2 in WP(Pll. ) No 29 of 2021 as per Court Order dated 25lOBl2O21)

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oi lndia praying that in the circumstances state,i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to in compli;rnce with the orders of My Lord Honourable the Chief Justice dated. 09/03/2021 a,rd for the reasons stated in the letter dated 04/03/2021 sent by the petitioner her,)in, complaining that illegal construction of Hotel Tulips Grand at Turkayamjal Munl:ipality in Ranga Reddy District wars built without seeking any permission from Hyclerabad Municipal Development Authority (HMDA) and floating all stipulated norms :f Municipal laws and the local MLA and ln-charge Minister of the District went lo naugurate the said hotel on O5lt)312021 and since last six months he brought t-is issue to the notice of respondents herein and they failed to take any action against the Hotel Authorities and thal many illegal conslructions are taking place ii Hyderabad Municipal Development Authority limits, this Honourable Court r,ray be pleased to issue an apprcpriate writ, order or orders more particularly in^'.he nature of Writ of Mandamus to^,:all for remarks and records relating thereto fronr the respondents herein and to direct the respondents to take necessary action a(;ainst the above illegal constructions taking^place in Hyderabad lvlunicipal Developn rent Authority limits.

¶27

Counsel for the Pe: tioner:SRl. G. MADHUSUDAN RE:DDY

¶28

Counsel for the R€,-spondent No. 1: GP FOR GAD/ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶29

Counsel for the Rr:spondent Nos. 2, 5 & 6: GP FOR IJIUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION^.1 URBAN DEVELOPMENT/ADVOCATE GENERAI.

¶30

Counsel for the Rerspondent No. 4: SRl. N. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA

¶31

Counsel for the R:rspondent No. 7: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MC

¶32

Counsel for the Rr:spondent No. 8: SRl. C. RUTHWIK REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the R espondent Nos. 9 to 12:

¶34

WP NO:^'t4606 OF 2020

¶35

Between:

¶36

K. Laxma Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.5-67, Ragannaguda, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

T. Ashok Goud, S/o. Late Pentaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Sri Nagar Colony, H.No.2-99, Kammaguda, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶38

S. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-83/A, Nagarjuna Colony, Ragannaguda, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

K. Sathayya, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, F/o. Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Plot No.164, Turkayamjal, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶40

...PETITIONERS

¶41

AND

¶42

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Shamshabad, Hyderabad District.

¶44

Turkayamjal Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District.

¶45

The Assistant City Planner, Turkayamjal f\runicipality, Ranga Reddy District

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a order, direction, writ more specifically, a Wrlt of Mandamus declaring high-handed action of the 3rd and 4th Respondent in proceeding to demolish the building bearing No.2-1213 in S.No.338 of Ragannaguda, Turkayamjal Municipality as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to procedure contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act and further direct the l StRespondent to regularize the 3rd and 4th Floor of the said building under Building Regularization Scheme (BRS).

¶48

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶49

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 3rd and 4th Respondent not to demolish the building bearing No.2-12l3ⁱⁿ S.No.338 of Ragannaguda of Turkayamjal Municipality,^pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶50

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶51

Petition under S: ection 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the (1) Copy of the Show Cause in Lr. No.001/TKI V|JU ITS/2020, dated 0410912020.(2) Copy of the explanation submitted by thr: Petitioners to the Show Cause notice, dated tt8/09/2020.(3) Copy of the Petitioners representation, dated 0710512020,(4) Copry of the Photographs various unauthorized constructions/build ingi; within the limits of Turkayamjal Municipality,(5) Copy of the Photographs of the Pt,:titioners Building With old elevation and proposed elevation as additional material rapers Filed along with this application

¶52

Counsel for the Petiti:'ners:M/S. K. KIRAN MAYEE

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMT:1,IT

¶54

Counsel for the Resp,ondent No. 2: SRl. V. NARASIMHT\ GOUD, SC FOR HMDA

¶55

Counsel for the ResSrondent Nos. 3 & 4: SRl. N. PRA,VE:EN KUMAR, SC FOR MC

¶56

The Court made the lollowing:

¶57

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SIIARMA AND

¶58

¶59

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶60

WP(PILI No.29 of 2021 & W.P.No.14606 of 2O2O

¶61

COMMON ORDER, ri,,.,i.. ir.", rr",;'. Ctuef Justice Sotish Cha dro Shannol

¶62

Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶63

The facts of W.P(PIL).No.29 of 2O2I are reproduced as under:-

¶64

The present writ petition (public interest litigation) has been registered based upon a letter dated 04.O3.2021 wherein it has been stated that Hotel Tulips Grand in T\rrkayamjal Municipality has been constructed without there being any building permission granted by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and floating all statutory provisions/ municipal laws.

¶65

This Court has directed the HMDA to file reply in the matter and the HMDA has filed a detailed and exhaustive reply. The reply reveals that after following due process of law, a show cause notice has been issued on O4.O9.2O2O and a contempt notice was issued on 27.O9.2O2O to the owners of the subject building and they have also submitted explanation on

¶66

O8.O9.2O2O. It has also been stated that an application was also submittr:d by the owners of the subject building on O l.1O.2O2O f<rr regularisation of the alleged urlauthorised/illegal construction ;rnd the same is also pending.

¶67

The fact-s of the case reveal that W.P.No. 14606 of 2O2O has been hlect by the owners of the subject building and this Court has gr;:rnted an order of srahls quo in the matter. Meaning thereby, all proceedings whether they are in respect of taking appropriate action in respect of illegal construction or whetf-rer they are in respect of regularisation of illegal construction have come to stan dstill.

¶68

Resultantly, without adverting to the merits of the case, both the writ petition (public interest litigation) and the writ petition are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities Lo pass a hnal order in respect of the show cause notice dated O4.O9 .2O2O issued in the matter, that too after taking into account the reply dated 08.09.2O2O submitted by the owners of the subject building. The exercise of passing appropriate order be concluded within a period of forty-live (45) days from today.

¶69

There. is also an application for regularisation of alleged unauthorised / illegal construction and the respondent I

¶70

¶71

authorities shall pass appropriate order in respect of ttre application also within the aforesaid period.

¶72

At this^juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.No.Sl30 of 2016 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order dated 18.1O.2O16:-

¶73

'ln all these writ petitions, persons who have raised illegal structures, and who claim to have submitted applications for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.lI.2Ol5, have invoked the^jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus to restrain the concerned Municipal Corporations from demolishing the structures raised by them, as their applications, for regula.isation of the illegal constructions, are still pending consideration before the competcnt authorities.

¶74

while, in some cases, the writ petitions have been filed on mere apprehension, in a few others, notices have been issued to the petitioners, under Section 452 (l) of the GHMC Act, asking them to show causc why action should not be taken for demolition of the illegal structures raised by them earlier. As we have modihed the interim order passed earlier, in W.P.(PIL) No.63 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016, today i.e., 18.10.2016, we consider it appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions, in terms of the said order, directing the concerned Municipal Corporations not to take coercive steps, for demolition of the illegal structures raised by the petitioners herein, provided applications, seeking regularization under C.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015, were submitted by them before the cut-off date specified in the said G.O or the extended cut-off date till ot.03.2016.

¶75

ln casc the petitioners have submitted applications for regularisation on or before 01.03.2016, the respondent Municipal Corporation shall not take coercive steps to demolish the illegal structurcs raised by them till orders are^passedon their applications for regularisation, and the said orders are communicated to them. It is open to the Municipal Corporations, in such of thosc cases whcre the applications for regularisation are rejected, to initiatc action for demolishing the^subject

¶76

¶77

st.uctur.s in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, and thr Rules and bylarvs made thereunder- [t is madc clcar that, i r such of those cases whcre applications, seeking regular sation, have not been submitted before 1.03.20t6, it is open to the Municipal Corporations concerned to take action, for demolition of the illegal structures, in accordance \sith laN-

¶78

All these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismiss,rl. There shall be no order as to costs.'

¶79

In the light of the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities are directed to follow the same procedure as prescribed try the Division Bench in respect of the application Itled by the owners of the subject building in respect of regularizattrn.

¶80

It is made clear that till linal orders are passed by the respondent authorities in the matter, as directed by this Court, there will be no coercive action against the owners of the subject building.

¶81

Pendir-rg miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶82

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

SD/.K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY'

¶84

i1' SECTION OFFICER

¶85

To,

¶86

The Chief^{(:;ecretary, State of Telangana, Secretariat' Hyderabad'}

¶87

The Princi5ral^{Secretary,MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development}

¶88

Oepartmeit State of Telangana, Secrelariat' Hyderabad'

¶89

g. ine comrr issioner, Greatel Hyderabad^{Municipal corporation, Tank Bund,} Hyderabad

¶90

Hyderabad

¶91

a i6e Comr.issioner,^{Hyderabad MetropoiitanD{3velopmentAuthority (HMDA)'} Ameerpet, llYderabad.

¶92

rd{J-

¶93

¶94

The Commissioner and Director of lt4unicipal Administration, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶95

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶96

The Commissioner, Turkayamjal Municipality, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶97

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶98

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Shamshabad, Hyderabad District-

¶99

The Commissioner, Turkayamjal ltilunicipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶100

The Assistant City Planner, Turkayamjal tVlunicipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶101

One CC to Sri. G. Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶102

2 CCs to Sri.V. Narasimha Goud, Sc for HMDA [OPUC]

¶103

10.2 CCs to Sri.N. Praveen Kumar, SC for MC [OPUC]

¶104

One CC to Sri. C. Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶105

12.One CC to M/s. Kiran Mayee, Advocate IOPUC]

¶106

13.Two CCs to GP for GAD, High Cou( for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶107

14.Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶108

[ouTl

¶109

1 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶110

16.Two CD Copies.

¶111

pMl('^{orr S?ue c,?,n'}

HIGH COURT

DATEO:2710412O22

COMMON ORDER

.{'i,. S';tie
a
T:W
{i 2X SEP

¶118

WP(P|L).No.29 ol 2t)21 & WP.No. 14606 of 2020

¶119

Disposing oF the WP(PIL) & WP Without costs.

¶120

€rury' od\rn l).^w

Sri Komatireddy Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Komatireddy Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 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

T. Yakaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

M. Sirisha Vs The Honourable Registrar (Recruitment)

Sh Ganesh Karnati Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs K. Ashok

M/S. Jeevaka Indu. Ltd., Medak Dist. Vs the Chief Manager, a.P.Transco., Hyd. and 3 Othrs

M/s Aktinos Pharma Private Limited Vs The State Government of Telangana and 3 others