Disposed

B. Ankamma Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023WP/24962/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Original Jurisdiction petition under Article 226 and inherent powers of Section 151 CPC, the High Court for the State of Telangana disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits, while directing the respondents to consider and dispose of a representation filed by the petitioner regarding a building permit allegedly obtained by suppressing the pendency of

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing respondents to consider the representation dated 27.07.2023 and afford hearing to all parties within four weeks; no order as to costs.

B. Ankamma Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,^{THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶8

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 24962oF 2023}

¶9

Between:

¶10

B. Ankamma^{Rao, S/o. B. Veeraiah,A-ged. about' 45 years'Occ' Business'} Fi/o. Flail.ro.^{B-z r oa1 ilviior""n'iiit npurtments' Pufpalaguda' Telangana-} 500089

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its' PrincipalS"q"lgry} and CIP(FAC), Bhavan, Secretariat,

¶14

' r"OusiGt ind Corimerce D'epartment, Sth Floor' BRKR Hyderabad.

¶15

The Vice^{Chairmanand Managing Director'Telanoana State lndustrial} lnfrastructure^{corporritn,oin"rio6r,parlsrama Bhlvan. Fateh Maidan Road,} AisneerUagh,^{Hyilerabad-500004, Telangana'}

¶16

3.TheChiefExecutiveofficer.Projects,TelanganaStatelndustriallnfrastructure Corooration,^Otn noorlijaisrliil-e'niuan.^{fiteh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad-500004,^Telangana'

¶17

4.TheChiefEngineer,TelanganaStatelndustriallnfrastructureCorporation,6th-' fi;;,-i;;is'a,il B#t;;;:'i:t" I H/luio' n Road' Basheerba g h' Hvd era bad500004, Telangana

¶18

The Secretary,^{TelanganaReal EstateRegulato-rv Authoritv'DTCPBuilding'} Ground Ftoor, 640,^{A:i. G;;;;, M;iin ii"i,opp. PTI Buildins, Hyderabad-} 500004.

¶19

M/s. Phoenix^{GlobalSpaces PrivateLtd' Rep'.Bv its Director} " Iri#h"d;lixapirii, Fio-Froi r'rolses, noab ruo' 45' Jubilee^Hills' Hyderabad.

¶20

M/s. Phoenix^{Tech DevelopersPvt'Ltd} '^{Rep, By its DirectorsVenkata Satya} Siva Srihari^{rouaana'a"n6iisl-i,ihji" nio-' Fyo- Ftat No' +p3-(P^)-, TS No 1'} Eioik:i, Wrra-g,^{Ro;JN;:78,Jubilee Hills, Hvderabad 500033'}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in if,u uitiO'uitfiled therewith' the High Court maybe} i;;ue an order,^{Jirection or Writ'more particularlv in the natureof a} ;i;;;;'il

¶23

writ of [/andamus declaring the action of the^respondents No.2^{an,l 5 in not} considering the representation of the^petitioner daled^{27.07.2023 againstthe} construction made by respondent No.6 & 7 by obtaining^{building permitNo.} llcl0229l2o21 dated 06.10.2021 in Sy. No. 273, 274 and^{273/1 Puppalaguda} Village, Gandipet lvlandal, Rangareddy District by supressing^{the fact: that Civil} Suit bearing OS. No. 928 of 2007 is^pending before^{Vlll Additional District Judge,} Rangareddy District as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded apart from being'riolative^of article^'14 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to^direct respondent No.2 to 5 to cancel the building^{permit No. llClO229l2O21 dated} 06.10.2021 in Sy. No. 273,274 and 27311 situated at^{PuppalagudaVillage,} Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District^granted to^{respondent No 6 & 7,}

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} direct the respondent No. 2 to 5 to consider and dispose of^{the representation of} the^petitioner daled 27 .07 .2023 in accordance^with law.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶27

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 direct the respondent No. 2 to 5 to stop construction being^made by^respondent No. 6 & 7 in in Sy. No. 273.274 and 27311 Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, based on^{permissionwhich} is^olltainedby suppression and m isrep rese ntatio^n.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY,^SC FoR^TSIIC

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:^- -^{- -}

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE H ONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTI CE NAGES H BHEEMAPAKA}

¶36

WRIT PETITION^{NO. 24962 ot 2023}

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ^{petitionis filed seeking the followingrelief:}

¶39

"ro issue writ of^{mondomusdecloringlhe ociionof} reipondenf^{Nos.2to 5 in nol considering therepresentoti.on} if^{'lhe petitionerdoted 27.07.2023ogoinst lhe construclion} ioae'Oy respondent^{Nos.6ond 7 by obtoining b!:ldi!1g} perml N'o.tlC10229I202t^{doted06'10'2021 in SY'NI'273'274} Zitd 2731 t^{Puppologudo Vittoge, GondipetMond-ol'} nongoreddy^{DistdctbY suppressingthe focl thotCivilSuii} O."ii"g^{O.S.l'i..C28of 2007is pending before Vlll Additi,onol} Dtstrict" Judge,^{RongoreddYDistrici os illegol'orbitrory'} iigniona.i sdo e-ii Consiifution "pon^{flom of being lndioond violotive consequentlY of Article.l4 to dkect} .ond ,.rporo""t^{Nos.2 to 5 to concel the building permit} iJtitozzctzozt^{doted06.t0.202t in survev No'273' 274} "ii^{itstt siiuoted ot Puppotogudo villoge'Go.nd.ipet} iinaot, Rongoreddy^{Districtgrontedlo respondentNos 6} ond 7."

¶40

2.ThecoseofthepetitioneristhotoneBurgupolli sivoromokrishno^{ond B others hove ocquired lond odmeosurlng} Ac.O4-17^{guntosin Survey No'273. Ac'O-22guntos in Survey No'274} ond Ac.O5-00^{guntosin Survey No'273/1'siluoted ot Puppologudo} Villoge, Gondipet^{Mondol. Rongoreddy District'hovingpurchosed} ihe some under^{lwo regisiered sole deeds beoring document} Nos.ll262 of^{2022 ond 5259 of 2003 doted04'09'2002 and} 02.08.2003^{respectively.Soid BurgupolliSivoromokrishnohos} informed to the^{petitionerond two othersthot he wos ociingos} representotive^{for B oihers ond they ore the lowfulowners of the}

¶41

N8K,J wP No.24S)62-2023

¶42

¶43

I.n

¶44

soid^{lond ond offered lo sell the loncls odmeosuringAc'04-17 gluntos} in Survey^{No.273, Ac0-22 gunlos in Survey No'274 ond Ac'05-00} guntos in^{SurvevNo.273lI ,siluoted ot PuppologudoVilloge'} Gondipet^{Mondol, RongoreddyDistrict' for ototol sole} considerotion^{of Rs.2.19,45.000/[email protected],00,000/-per ocre'ln} pursuonce of^{lhe soid offer, on l6'l I '2003 on oqreement of sole} wosexeculedbetweentheBurugupollisivoromokrishno.rndS othersosvendorsondpetitionerondtwoothersospurchosers'On lhe soid^{dote of execution of ogreementof sole, ihe petition,:rond} iwoothershovepoidosumofRs50,00,000/-toBuru'Supolli Sivoromokrishnoondnotimewosfixedforexecutionond registrotion^{of sole deed. lt is further cose of the petitionerthot from} thedoteofogreementofsole,pelilionerondtwoother:;were reodyondwillingloperformtheirportofcontroctondrequested Burgupolli^{Sivoromokrishnoond B olhers to complete the exerculion} ondregistrotionofso|edeedospertheogreementofsoledoted l6.ll.2003buttheyorekeptposiponinglhesomeononepreltextof o noth^er.

¶45

lt is furiher^{cose of the petiiionerthot ihe peiitioner ond lwo} others hove^{senl legol notice doted 15 05 2007 io Burugupolli} Sivoromkrishno^{ond B others for execulion of sole deed' But soid}

¶46

NBI(,,l WP N0.24962 2023

¶47

¶48

persons hove^{refusedto execute ond register lhe sqle deed vide} reply notice^{doled24.052007 on the ground lhot the petitioner ond} two others^{hove toiled to poy the boloncesole considerotion wilhin} six months^{ond thot the ogreementstonds terminoledond the} odvonce^{sole considerotionpoid is forfeited. Aggrieved by the soid} ociion of^{the soid persons, the petitionerond two othershovefiled} suitvideo.S.No.g2Bof2ooTonthetileofVlllAddilionolDiskicl Judge ot^{L.B.Nogor, Rongo Reddy District for specific performonce} ond^{perpeluol injunclionond the soidsuit is pending odjudicolion'}

¶49

lt is the^{cose of lhe peliiioner thot while lhe motier stood lhus'} respondent^{Nos.6 ond 7 herein were toking cloim over the subiecl} lond through^{the defendontsin the suit ond obtoinedbuilding} permission^{vide permitNo'llClO229l2O2l doied 06'l0'2021for} construclion^{of multi-sloreyed commerciolcomplex in survey} Nos.272 and^{273 ond respondentNos'6 ond 7 hove olso storted} construction^{in the obove soid surveynumbers'lt is olso the cose of} the^{petitionerthot respondenl Nos'6 ond 7 ore well oworethol civil} suit is^{pending beforeihe Court ond wilhout disclosingthe soid foct'} they obioined^{the buildingpermission' On27'07'2023 the petitioner} hos mode^{o representolion to respondentNos'2to 5 stoting lhol} respondent^{Nos.5 ond 7 hove obtoined buildingpermission by}

¶50

NBK.J wP No.24962 2023

¶51

¶52

misleoding thenr ond olso undertoken conslruclion^{in survey} Nos.272 ond 273 <rnd requesled the outhorities^{concerned1c toke} oclion ond concel the^{permissiongronted to respondentNos.,5ond} / bul respondenl Nos.2 1o 5 ore^{refusingto considerlhe some} Therefore, ihe pelitioner hos opprooched^lhis Court^{1o ,lirect} respondent Nos.2 to 5lo concel the building^{permission gronted lo} respondent Nos.6 ond 7 in Survey^{Nos.272 ond 2/3 situote:d ot} Puppologudo villoge, Gondipel Mondol.^{RongoredydDislriclin} occordonce with low

¶53

Heord lhe submissions of Sri T.Bolo Mohon^{Reddy. lecrrned} counsel for the^petilioner, leorned Governmenl^{Pleoder for} Industries ond Commerce Deportment^representing on beh,:lf^of respondent No.l , Sri L.Probhokor Reddy,^{leornedSlondingCounsel} for TSIIC represenling on beholf of respondent Nos.2 to 4,^Sri Polkompolly Povon Kumor Roo, Ieorned counsel for resporrdent No.6 ond Sri P.Somo Shekor Reddy, leorned counsel for resporrdenl No.7

¶54

Leorned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 veherrently opposed thot opportunity of heoring moy be^gronted to them while considering the representotion of the^petitioner ond ollow them lo

¶55

NB(,J WP No.24962 2023

¶56

¶57

file iheir objections^{includinglhe documents lo esloblish their right} over the^proPertY

¶58

Without expressing^{ony opinionon the meritsof the cose'this} Court deems^{it fit ond properto direci respondentNos'2 to 5 to} consider ond^{dispose of the representolion of the petitioner} doted 27.07.2023.

¶59

B. Accordingly, this^{Writ Pelition is disposed ofdirecting} respondent^{Nos.2to 5 to consider ond dispose of the representolion} doted2T.OT.2023oflergivingonopportunityofheoringtoollthe porties concerned.^wilhin o^{periodof four (04) weeksfrom lhe doie} of receipt of^{o copy of lhis order. Theresholl be no order os to} costs.

¶60

Miscelloneous^{opplicotions,if ony pending,sholl olso slond}

¶61

closed.

¶62

SOI. TUOXO.^{SANAULLAHANSARI} Asstsrelt^REGISIIMR //rRUE CoPY// secrrOi'6'rrrCen

¶63

To,

¶64

1 I*:,YJ:73|3siJ"'|.J,'#T,fl',i33P,-E::,'sl.r;J:'"1sailx'i313'1"$f-l'ifl**o'

¶65

2 h:tt'':'"eli['rlrqflf i{i.#t"8.,.',"I$srltr;rgr*::'l:['iirl1',H'Jil: corooration, 6th^{floor'Parlsr€} Hycierabad-500004,^Telangana

¶66

_ <o,a[d

¶67

The Chief^{Engrneer,Telangana State lndustrtal lnfrastructure Corporation,6th} floor, Parisranra^{Bhavan. Fateh lvlaidanRoad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-} 500004,^Telangana

¶68

The Secretary,^{Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, DTCI)Building,} Ground Floor,^{640, A.C. Guards,MasabTank, Opp. PTI Building, Hyderabad-} 500004

¶69

One CC^{to SR} T. BALA TVOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶70

One CC^{to SR} P. SON/A SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to^SR POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO. Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC^{to SR} L, PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC [OPUC] 9. Two CCs^{to G} P FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, High Court fbr the State of Telangana. Iour]

¶72

Two CD^CoPies BN GJP ('

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

ORDER

WP.No.24962 of 2023

1 STA ra:
(
t P
f,
o $ B 0E[ ?08 ,;
..:,
.. t ,,)'
t( D rr^-t a 'lr,t -';/
,.y'
;'..,5

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶80

S.{&s ffi"

B. Ankamma Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ankamma Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kombattula Lakshmidhar Vs Telangana State South Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation

M/S.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs M/S.Sharada Mechanical Engineering,Hyd,and 2

Mekala Venkatamma and 3 Ors. Vs P.Srinivasulu and Anr.

M/s. Sha Engineering Works (S.C.No.S7007000) Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Tg Ltd.

Jammi Devender Vs The State of Telangana