Dismissed

K. Rajitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023WP/26330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition regarding alleged illegal construction. Holding that the petitioner should approach the civil court that passed the status quo order rather than invoking Article 226, the writ petition was dismissed without deciding merits or expressing an opinion on the facts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no direction given to respondents; merits not considered.

K. Rajitha Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26330 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Rajitha, Wo Koka Sai Baba Rao, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business Rl/o Villa no. 49, Beverley Palms Nizampet, Hyderabad - 500090

¶9

,.,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, I/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, CC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 500063 Rep., by its Commissioner

¶13

The Assistant City Planner, Circle-21, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Deputy Commissioner Circte-21, ChandanagarSLPZ, Gangaram,Engineers Enclave, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500050

¶15

Maloth Yojana, Wo M. Mohan, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 2-56lD/123, Plot No. 122 and 123, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in failing to initiate appropriate action against the illegal construction activities being undertaken by the Sth Respondent herein in Plot No, 929 in Sy. No. 11/31 at Shaikpet Village, Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nagar Taluk, Serilingampally t\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1956, and consequently, direct the official respondents herein to remove the illegal structure constructed by the 5th Respondent in the sub.ject property in accordance with law.

¶18

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶19

Petition under S,)ction 151 CPC praying that in the circJnrst.rnces stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Ccurt nra'/ br: pleased to stop the illegal construr:tion activities being undertaken bv the tith Re:spondent in Plot No. 929 in Sy. Nc. 11l31 at Shaikpet Village, Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nagar Taluk, Serilingarrpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under S:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court nra y b,r pleased to direct the Respondents to seal the structure under construction in Plot No. 929 in Sy. No. 11131 at Sha kpet Village, Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nlagar Taluk, Serilingampally Manda , Ranga Reddy District in accordz nce urith the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitiorer: SRI G. KALYAN CHAKRAVATiTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ,\DMltll!;TRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMT:NT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI M.A.K. MUKI-IEED, Srl FCR GHMC

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - - - -

¶26

The Court made the fo lowing: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, VINOD KUMAR

¶28

Writ Petition No.26330 of 2023

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

'this Writ Petition is filed seeking a l/yrlt of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in failing to inataate appropriate action against the illegal construction activities being undertaken by the 5th respondent in Plot No.929 in Sy.No.11/31 at Shaikpet Village, Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nagar Taluk, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of the Greater l'lyriei'abad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governrnent Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for resr)ondent No,1 and Sri l,1.A.K.Mukheed,^learned Standinq Counsel, appearinq for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up For hearing and disposl at the stage oF admission. Since lhe Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission, notice to the unofncral respondent is felt unnecessary.

¶32

l. It !s the case of the petitioncji lhat aggrieved by the illegal and rrnaur.horized construction beang made by the 5th respondent, the^petitioner had apprcached the cificial respondents .:nd s,,rbmittcd representations dilrcd 03.01.2023, t0.0;!.2a23 and 03.,18.2023 bringrnq to thelr notice about

¶33

¶34

the encroachment and illegal construction being madt: by tire 5th respondent and in spite of the said complaints being lodged by the petitirtner, no actron has been taken th ereon.

¶35

It is the frrrther contention of the petitioner that aglrieved by the inaction of the n:spondents, she had approached this Cour. on an earlier occasion/ vide Yl.P.No.27ll7 of 2022, and this Court by order dated 05.07.2022 direcled the official respondents to pasi; approf,riale orders in accordance with law; and that in spite of the said directiorr, rro action to remove the illegal construction is taken.

¶36

Per contr.?, learned Standing Counsel ap3earin3 on behalf oF respcndent Nos., to 4, while denying the claim of the pet tioner, submits that after receivi rg the representations from the pertitionr:r, thc authorities have issued a srow cause notice to the 5s respcndent x 28.06.2022, whereby the 5tt' respondent was informed that the constru,:tions made by him in the subje,t plot are unauthorized and illegal and call,:d Jpon him to remove the san e, Failing which, necessary action woull be initiated by following due prc cess of law.

¶37

Learned itanding Counsel would further subnrit that on the respondent passing the Speaking Order, the 5th responder,t^.rad approached Junior Civil Judge. Kukatpally, and had filed a suit, br:ing O.S No,B38 ot 2022 and obtained st^{ttus quo} order on 29.08.2022, and as su,:h the authorities could not take arry further action on the basis of the ;peakinlt Order^passed.

¶38

¶39

I I

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the respondents have Rled a written statement in the suit and also a petition to vacate the said status quo order, but, however, the same is pending consideration.

¶41

Though the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the inaction of the official respondents, the official respondents could not have acted in contravention of the order of status quo passed by the lunior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, in O.S.No.B3B of 2022 dated 29.08.2022 thereby exposing themselves to Civil Contempt. If the petitioner wants the authorities to take action, the proper course for her would be to implead herself in the above suit. being a neighbour and being affected by the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the 5m respondent and bring to the notice of the said Court that the unofficial respondent had made the construction without obtaining any permission. Thus, the information as furnished by the official respondents to the petitioner in response to the application filed under the Right to Information Act, cannot be found fault with.

¶42

Further, it is also to be noted that a Division Bench of this Courtⁱⁿ Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad v/s. M/s. Philomena Education Foundation of India, Hyderabadt had held that against statutory notices, the trial Court should be slow^{in entertainingand} granting orders.

¶43

' zoos^(r) alt euo

¶44

¶45

In view of tl-e above circumstances, this Couft i:; of the vierv that the petitioner, in stead of approaching this Court by invol ing the ext.aordinary jurisdiction under r\rticle 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to have approached the co npetent Court of civil^jurisdiction vrhich ral passed the order of status quc and sought for vacating the same and the'ealter, if the respondents fail to .ake any action, call in question the said irrartion, and not by the present proc:edrngs

¶46

Subject to .he above observation and libertl, as^(lrant€rd to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear tirat this Court has not expressed rrny opinion on the merits oF the matter.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition s,hall stand

¶48

closed. No order as tc, costs

¶49

¶50

SD,'.Ei. SARASWATHI ASSIS-TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// - Ilt SE']TICN OFFICER

¶51