Disposed

M/S. Amrutha Estates, Hyd v. Emerald Apartments Owners Assn and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WA/2055/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ appeals and a writ petition concerning land utilization and builder claims by directing the Commissioner to consider ongoing representations and pass an order on the merits within six weeks, while declining to adjudicate the case at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The Court reserved judgment on the matter to the Commissioner and directed him to dispose of the representation dated 23.02.2022 within six weeks. The appeals were ultimately dispersed (dismissed) wit

M/S. Amrutha Estates, Hyd Vs Emerald Apartments Owners… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13377 |

¶2

i I i II I I I ; I i i i

¶3

¶4

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL N Os.20 55 & 2072 0F 2002: 17420F 2004 AND WRIT PETITIONN0.24768 0F 1999

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2055 oF 2002:

¶11

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against order dated 15-11-2002 in WP No.14807 of 1990 on the file of the High Courr Between:

¶12

M/s. Amrutha Estates, i 4-3-652, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its partner Rajeev Reddy.

¶13

AND

¶14

...APPELLANT/3'd RESPONDENT

¶15

'1. Emerald Aparlments -Owners Association Amrutha Hills, panjagutta, Hyderabad. Rep. by its President A. Narayana Rao.

¶16

....RESPONDENTM/RIT PETITIONER

¶17

2 State,of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Housing H4unicipai AOmini;ir;iio;-" -^{and urban uevelopmentDepartmentat secretafiat,Hydeirabad.} 3 I he.Commissioner, Hydera_bad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶18

4 thqr.rmal &. .Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, 5_9_167/1, cunfoundry, Hyderabad.

¶19

(Respondent No.4 is not necessary to this Writ Appeal.)

¶20

R-espondent No.2 Cause Tifle is Amended as per Court Order dated 12.02.2015 in W.A.M.P.No.408O of 2014

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2002^(wA MP. N O: 38I 7 F2002

¶23

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order dated 15.11.2002 passed in w.p.No.14g07 of 1990 during pending of the writ appeal.

¶24

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(WAMP. NO: 4109 oF 2003)

¶26

Between:

¶27

Emerald Apartments Owners Association Amrutha Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Rep. by ils President A Narayana Rao

¶28

RESPONDENT/15t RESPONDENT

AND

".,.PETITIONERi1't

1 lrlr Rajeev Reddy, Partner [t4/s. Amrutha Estates, 14-3-652, Somajiguda, HyCerabad

¶33

..,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONERYAPPELLANT

¶34

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing, Ivlunicipal Administrat on & Urban Development Depa(ment, Hyderabad.

¶35

Smt Chitra Ramachandran, IAS, Commissioner, frilunicipal Corporation of Hyderabad Hyderabad

¶36

The Chairnan & lr.4anaging Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, 5-9-167/1 , Gunfoundry, Hyderabad.

¶37

(Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not necessary parties)

¶38

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interinl order granted in w.P.lr/. P. No.3897 of 2002 in w.A.No.2055 of 2002 on 30-12-2002

¶40

l.A. NO: 1OF 2006(WAMP.NO:2722 OF 2006)

¶41

Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aflidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Kindly accept the photos enclosed along with the affidavit for reference.

¶42

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDOY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶46

' :f

¶47

WRIT APPEAL NO: 2072 OF 2OO2

¶48

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against order dated 15-11-2002 in WP No.15374 of 1997 on the file of the High Cou(

¶49

Between:

¶50

¶51

N,4/s. Amrutha Estates, represented by its fi/anaging Partner, Y. Rajeev Reddy, 8-2703, Amrutha Valley, Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad 500034

¶52

...APPELLANTMRIT PETITIONER

¶53

AND

¶54

'1. lvlunicipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, Municipal Administration Department, rep. by^its Secretary, at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶55

B. Srimannarayana S/o. B. Chinna Rangaiah, aged about 61^{years, R/o.6-3-} 713, Sapphire Complex, Amrutha Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶56

Respondent No.2 Cause Title is amended as^per Court Order dated 12.02.2015 in W A.N4.P.No.4O81 of 2014.

¶57

.,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶58

WAMP. NO:3918 OF 2002

¶59

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} suspend the operation of the Judgment dated 15.11.2002^passedin W.P.No-'15374 of 1997, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL^FOR SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KATIKA^{RAVINDER REDDY,} S.C. FOR GHMC

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA^REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN^DEVELOPMENT

¶62

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Ms. NAUSHEEN NAJM Us SAHAR, COUNSEL FOR SRI M. V. DURGA PRASAD

¶63

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 1742OF2004

¶64

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against order dated 15-11-2002 and made in WP No.14216 of 1999 on the file of the^HighCourt.

¶65

Between:

¶66

1 Sapphire Residents Welfare Association represented^{by its Secretaryand} Cohvener of Ad-hoc Committee, 6-3-713,^{Panjagutta, Hyderabad.}

¶67

¶68

Surat Singh, son of late Harinam Singh,

¶69

3, N.Radhika Reddy, w1o Kiran Kumar Reddy,

¶70

K.Ramakrishna, s/o R Kodandaram,

¶71

Abdul Raheem, s/o late Lal I,4ohanrmad,

¶72

Reshma Kaur, Wo Balblr Singh,

¶73

J.G.Athalekar, s/o late G. R.Atchalek har,

¶74

Swaran Pasricha, d/o Haveli Ram

¶75

Dr.Elyas, sio Shaikh l\4rya l\4oinuddin,

¶76

{

¶77

Shashi Reddy w/o late V Ramachandra Reddy,

¶78

l l.lrilohan Singla, sio Ganapatram Gupla,

¶79

Anil Gupta. s/o H.G.Gupta,

¶80

13.Ajay Kumar s/o late Nlahavrr Prasad,

¶81

B. Srimannarayana, s/o Chrnna Rangaiah,

¶82

V N,,lanohar Reddy, s/o V.K Reddy

¶83

Santosh Grpta, w/o H.D.Gupta,

¶84

P.Varalaxmi, w/o Pallepovu,

¶85

S R Sankaran, s/o late Ramanathan,

¶86

P.C.Gupta s/o late N4atabadal Gupta,

¶87

B.Samrajyarar m i, w/o B Srimanarayana.

¶88

2'1. Shivarama Prasad, s/o M.Ankincedu, All are R/o 6-3-713 Sapphire Complex, Amrutha Hills, Puniagutta, Hyderabao.

¶89

..APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶90

AND

¶91

1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep., by its Commissioner, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶92

2 M/s.Amrutha Estates, rep., by its Managing Partner, Sri Rajeev Reddy, S-2703, Amrutha Valley Road No.'12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶93

J Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶94

4 The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developnrent, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶95

5 Principal Secretary Incharge of Government Lands, Government of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶96

6 The Secretary (Urban Land) Ceiling, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 7 The District Collector, Hyderabad.

¶97

Respondent No.4 Cause Title is amended as per Court Order dated 12.02.2015 in W.A.M P No.4O97 ot 2O14.

¶98

...RESPONDENTS

¶99

)

¶100

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. NAUSHEEN NAJM Us SAHAR, COUNSEL FOR SRI M. V. DURGA PRASAD

¶101

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶102

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI C.V.^{MOHAN REDDY,} SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶103

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR^HOME

¶104

{

¶105

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA^REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN^DEVELOPMENT

¶106

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: GP FOR^REVENUE

¶107

WRIT PETITION NO i24768 0F 1999

¶108

Between:

¶109

Amrutha Estates, a^partnership firm represented by its Managing^PartnerSriY. Sanyeev Reddy, having^{its registered} office^{at 8-2-703, AmruthaValley, Road No.12,} Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶110

...PETITIONER

¶111

AND

¶112

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad represented by its^{Commissioner,} Hyderabad

¶113

The State of Telangana rep. by its Secretary,^{Munictpal Administration} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶114

The Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section, Municipal Corporation^of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

¶115

Respondent No 2 cause title is amended as^per Court Order^dated 12.02.2015 in W.P.tr,1.P.No.49351 0f 2014.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari direction or order declaring the several demands contained in the^{'1strespondentsletter} no.644/UC/ACP lc5lw\l99l2535l158/TP5/MCH/97^{Dt. 6/7-09-1999reiterated in} LR. No. 644/U C/ACP^I C5^lW 6 199^I 2938/¹ 58/TP5/87^{daled1 5/25-1 0-1 999issued by} the third respondent as illegal,^quash the^same.

¶118

l.A. NO: 1 OF 1999(WP MP. NO: 31182 OF 1999)

¶119

¶120

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtlon, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the letters in Letter no.644/UC/ACP lC5lW6t99tZ53St1SB1Tp5tMct1t97 Dt: 6/7-09-1999 issued by the 1st respondent rerterated in LR No.644/UC/ACP/C5/W6/99/2938 dt: 1St2S_iO_ 1999 issued by the 3rd respondent duringl the pendency of the W.p.

¶121

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt C.V. MOHAN REDDY, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶122

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SRt KATTKA RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶123

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt pASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶124

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶125

: -.!{.}::, r-ir.r'-

¶126

'II Iti I I()r.'BI-li 'IHF. (]FI] F]II tT ] S'I'IC I,] ALOKA ANI)

¶127

T^H E tI ON]L^{L F]S R} I J^{U SJt} I^{C EJY.SUBAV4]\LKUI44R} W4,N!,!-1055 -& 2Q72^{,.'f 21)02-} 11-42^{oI2.!04un-V/.P.Nq2a168of} 1999 CAI\II{ONJLIDG\lEN'l'^{/, ,} ! iu'bh r,:r⁽ t:ix lu.;ri,t,lt^-...tr,tti,1

¶128

¶129

Flcalcl Nlr.^(-.'.[ohrrrr Recltiv, learncd Scnior^(-our-rscl lor the 1n xppellanr in . .\os.l05.i & 2012 ctf 2002: petltitlour \'.P.No 2l'i 63 ,rt' l!)()9; rrrtl respourlent No.2 in \'.n.No.17-12 oF

¶130

2f){)4 (rnc i.1 r''rhc brir Itlc r' hc rcinafrcr)

¶131

,) 1\lr.⁽ i,':L.,rLnLh:r lirrr Lrclr-r, Icetncd c()unseI lor rcsponcle nt No.l 2SSOCIill^t( )n It1 \'..,,,]i 15i oi 1002 Qriefly'fiat owncrs hcreina.ltcr)

¶132

NIr. Iiirtilr:r ll.avrntlcr llcddr,, lcarncd Standing^(lounsel [br (lrcater Ilvclcr:rbrrti \lLrrrrcipal (iorporati<>n (Gf-lN{C) lor rcspondcnr No.3 in \i.r.No.2055 of 2002; respofldcnts No.1 & 3 in V7.P.No.247(t8 Lti I()()(); and responder-rt No.1 in W.A.lrlos.2072 & 1142 ol 2004

¶133

N{s. Naustrccn Najnr IJs Sahar, learned counscl representing Mr:. M.V.DLrrga l)rasrcl, lcrrrrcd counscl for respondent No..1 irr \'. {.No.2()72 ol 2l,t)2

¶134

.+?.i-

¶135

{

¶136

]'lr. l'ash:rllr^{I{tisllnll jit} 'lcrr,l,.;'1 11111^t 'r"^{( i r-r1"'('liL Plt:'i'lr": l';r} '. l l : r r;ciprl .'t.drr^{i:',isi-.:iilrll} "^{rr' 1 Ir'5;t} i )c\ .l1r,r\ir)(l t^l()i [Os^{r')i]i ).1(:\ I} r,r,.2 i,r ('.,\ i\r'r,.2()-ti c: l(l"ll^{r)i ){ri):; :r'iri':} "^{Lcrrir' \12 :l;rri} l!l $7 I) No.,l't^/6i li^il)')()l :Lrrrl ttsltltltlerlr^{'," Irrl \ -i\ " ll-if} o'201)l

¶137

(:. 'fltcs,: intrli c(rtlll xPPr,rls Itrrrc l't'clt ilil'<l ltir^l.s i^{i-( ,ll ltll()li} ()i.lct diit,ici 1r.1i.200:1.^{l-lltssctl i'"tlr': !'} ' 'rr:'-1^{Sirr':ic'ltrcig'-'} llr i 1i; lrl^, rt^r(r'l'). i)\ lr' l).No. l:180? oi 1r9i). I^{,-j."-r.11r ltrl)'} ..,..liich lc;r'nct,l Sirglc -llr''lt1c lrr''^{rii.'rr:rsstiitri" ljIl r-c [4 )r r'('(] rr<rtetl,.'cl bY il:c^{builclcr ar"'i [rlls rrli'r;' ccl rllr' lllPiitltr()tlI} tlat,tri,,riLrl^{ir-s soclail() rI}}

¶138

l,r:arneCSenior(,oun:;t'i:ip1":tii:rl'lfr'lt]rrllrrrllcle:t':llll)tllits ti-tal thc brriidc:r^is bouircl i.,r'li'lc^{at,ii'.:csstr; Iir1'r'I.l} bt'hirrr be[i^,rc: I rt^r.hc c,rt'cir:t' l,( ) rhis Court^{lvith rcgtrd} Parlii,lq^{ifc',ll1:,t t t-r} 'rtlctl d a recl 16.0?.',2022 I lc fLrr-tl;ct trttblt.li,.^{tltrlr ;,1l:r l:.t.lpiiar} '<^{c ofr'irc} iras tir.ler rlatcd^{16.02.'2A22,the ( 'rrnlt.trt:rsirrrri' r'i (]lii\t('} liubrrlitt(ld iL rcPol-l' arlci^{tirc wt-it 1IIJrc'tl' :lrlrl tl'c \'tit} DuUt^tUrt Di' of⁽ ;ll rv' ( to disposccl^{L)f wlth thc dlrr:ctiorlro thc( '()tlttlrl:iil()llct}

¶139

¶140

l ( I I

¶141

pxss a flnal ordcr in rcrms⁽ )i thc rcpr.rrt submitted bv hun u,ithin a Itrxcd ume [mit

¶142

{

¶143

()n thc t.ithcr har,d. learucrl Stanclnq (,ounscl tbr (iltMC sulrrnits rhar suirlbk r,rclcrs irr rerrns of the rcport shall be passed br thc⁽ lt-rmtnissiorrcl oi^(ill-\lC \'rrhin such tirne [mir as rrar, l-,e cLrcctcd bv rhis^(loLrrt

¶144

9t. Wc havc couslclcrecl rhc subrtrissions made on both sidcs ancl hrve pcrusecl the rcyrorl

¶145

1U. In rirc rcpor"t, ir hes l>ccn strrcd thar pursltlanr to thc orc'lcr clrrtcd 16.02.2()22, rhc irr-ril,-lcr hrrs submrtcd a rcp r.csen t:ltir_rn drrted 2-1.(12.2()22 elong s ttl'r plarts shrrvu'tns cxisting constructccl blocks-,\ B &^(. in rur-r'cv Nr,.i77 riituatcd at Puniagtrtta, llvcleral>ad aod pnrr',oscd bl,rcks D 8.: l.l.

¶146

11 It has turth<:r bt:t:n sr:rrctl in rhc reporr that th.; sitr: has becrr inspectecl ot 28.0 ).2022 anri plans ha.r.c becn exarruncd with thc r1r ourrd positron.^'l he clctailr; hzr.r'c Lccn mr:nrionecl irr 1.rara (r ol thc rcP()rt.

¶147

It has also b.L n p(-)ilrtc.l r rirt irr rhe rclron that thc br-rildcl h:,s

¶148

il(,t tnclicateJ parJ., :llca il ti-rc [,laos, u'[r,ch rvcrc submittr:cl

\ -l

r,n 23.(ll.2l:)22^{1rn(l th,rt 1n ()l)(ln Lrrrltlis r'r rrihl)lcl' r\'ilrcls ( 'rrll} Ltst^{(lli,,t:k L)1 ro air cxtellt ()f 11021-1 scluarc lretcr'\s p.r ''irc} sitllati()11.^{land to-'i'arcll; No''rh-\tcsrcorncr (1ll'rciiIrl ts :r-.'etl tlrlc trr} thc cxtcrrr^{ofi2(r0 sclulilcllrctcts'r"'hlcll i\co( reLl lvitllslabs} consisltrr,q^{oi trv<> levcls (G.ti), u'hrcir is bcirrg ''tsccl lt't parl'trrq'}

¶154

ll. 'l irc dccision ()n the r('l)reserllation^{sLrbrliitcill>'' tht' lrr-ril'lcr} has to^{bc lakci, bv thc ( 'oLnnril;sioncr' GFI\l('}

¶155

lrl^{vicr'"' of conscnsuslrrivc'l ilt betrvccr-ttf t: lt arnccl courl-tcl} lrtr tlrc llarties^{end in tl-rc hct siturut} 'rr^{o[ tllt' cesc' ii'c iippcrlls lLrlrl} thr:^{rr,'t'tt Tlctlttoll arcc1is1-rtlscdrlf sith tllctllli'ction l()thc} Comrnissiont,r,^{Cltlt'[Cto corlsit]ct and clct:iclc fllt rtl-tc';ttltrtion} dxtcd^{23.02.2-022, strbmittcrlir,r- thc builclcr:' iti :iccr'ttleuccrrith larv} t5. lt^{is clarified rhar this Court has nt>t crprcs reJ allv rrPilll()tr} on mcrits ol1^{thc clalm o[ thc builderas tir': clcr-isiorrh']st() bc take Il}

¶156

b), tl-rc Comrnissioncr,^()FIMC

¶157

Necdlc:;s^{to state tllaL tirc C()lntrlis st( )trcr' (lllNtCsh:rll hcal} a1l thc sral<choldcrs^{arld shall dcci'lc thctcPrcscn tztr()11} II s pcaliirttl^oldcr, d^teLl^{23.0?-.2022 subrnitted bv rhc burlclcr' br}

¶158

within I pcriod^{o[ six u'eclis ftonltoda</sup>}

¶159

¶160

17.^'I'hc appeal rs, accordirrgh, drsp<-rscd ()L l\io c()sts

¶161

As a sc<1uel, miscellaneous periri()ns. pcnciirrg rI lnv, stand

¶162

crr'51'i

¶163

¶164

//rRUE coPY// "'3fttslit-1il .r"ffiorr,"a

¶165

'll-mn+M,,+:Mf;

¶166

.. +il"88'JJtBX^{for Revenue'Hishcourt for rhe state or relansanaat} Hvderabad luu^{I I}

¶167

T\i7o^{CD Copies}

MBcy/

TIME LIMIT

HIGH COURT

{

HCJ & NVSK,J

DATED:0510912023

-::::-a - .-_.
Lrii\r.r rJl .
/::
l',::
i :-,
tt Stt ?tl}
,,') h /,,
':11,.t.<br>

¶176

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶177

W.A.NOs.2055 & 2072 OF 2002;1742 OF 2004; AND w.P.NO.24768 0F 1999

¶178

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶179

M/S. Amrutha Estates, Hyd v. Emerald Apartments Owners Assn and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Amrutha Estates, Hyd v. Emerald Apartments Owners Assn and 3 Ors.

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

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others

M/S.Amrutha Estates.Hyd. Vs Sapphire Residents Welfare Association

Nitin Kumar Agarwal Vs M/s. Karur Vysya Bank

Venkateshwara Silk Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The Inspecting Officer