Allowed

Nagula Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2023WP/483/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the revocation of building permits by the Ramagundam Municipal Corporation without prior notice or inquiry. The Court held that revocation without notice is unsustainable, set aside the cancellation orders, and directed the Corporation to issue a shortfall letter and decide appropriately.

What did the court decide?

Revocation orders dated 15.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 set aside; Respondents directed to issue shortfall letter and pass appropriate orders.

Nagula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 483 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nagula Srinivas, S/o N. Mallesham, aged 50 years, R/o H No .3-5-231, (G-1), B-Colony, Ramagundam Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, Telanqana State

¶9

Nagual Venugopal, S/o N. Mallesham, aged 46 years, R/o H.No. 2-2-17, Ramagundam Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, Telangana State

¶10

Nagula Krishna Kanth, S/o N. Mallesham, 42 aged years, R/o H.No. 2-2-114, Ramagundam Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, Telangana State

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, lt4unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, represented by its Principal Secretary

¶14

2 The Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District, represented by its Commissioner

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in cancelling / revoking the building Permit Order Nos. 235470 / RAIVG I 0929 I 2022 dated 05-12-2022, 235470 / RAMG / 0930 / 2022 dated 05-12-2022, 235470 / RAIv'lG I 0931 I 2022 dated 05-12-2022, respectively, issued to the Petitioners for construction of Ground Floor + 1 Upper Floor (lndividual Residential Building) at Plot No. / House No. belongs to dismantled H.No. 2-2-17, Street / Road - Ramagundam, Ramagundam Village, Ramagundam lvlunicipal Corporation, Peddapalli District in an extent of 196.21 sq.mtrs (234.67 sq.yds.), vide Notice / Order of revocation of Permission vide Letter Nos- 235470 / RAIUG/0929/2022, dated 15- 12-2022,235483 / RAMG/0930/2022, dated 17-122022, 235492 / RAMG I 0931 I 2022, daled 17-12-2022, respectively, without

¶17

issuing any nolice, without conducting any enquiry, and without following the procedure lard down under the Section 174 (4) (10) of the Telangana lvlunicipalities Act, 2019, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled legal position and consequently set-aside Notice / Order of revocation of Permission vide Letter Nos. 235470 I RAI\AG 1092912022, dated 15-12-2022, 235483 / RAN/Gi093012022, dated 17-12-2022, 235492 I RAIMG/0931/2022, dated 17-12-2022, respectively, issued by the 2nd Respondent and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to make the construction as per the sanctroned plan, without any interference.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 Notice / Order of revocation of Permission, vide Letter Nos. 235470 / RAMG I 0929 I 2022, dated 15-12-2022, 235483 / RAMG/0930/2022, dated 17-12-2022,235492 / RAIVG/Og31/2022, daied 17-12-2022, respectively, issued by the 2nd Respondent. while directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to make the construction as per the sanctioned plan, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO

¶23

(sc FoR MUN|CTPAL CORPORATTON)

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

l \

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.483 of 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition has been filed cha-llenging the revocation or cancellation of Revocation Building Permit vide Letters No.235470lRAMG/0929/2022, dated 15.L2.2O22, 235483/RAMG/O93O/2O22, dated 17.L2.2O22,

¶32

235492/RAMG|O93I/2O22, dated 77.12.2022, respectiveiy of the

¶33

permissions issued to the petitioners for construction of Ground Floor + 1 Upper Floor vide Building Permit order dated 05.12.2022.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no notices have been given to the petitioners indicating arry shortfalls in the submission of his documents, but has straightaway revoked the building permission which is illega-l and arbitrar5r.

¶35

Learned Standing counsel for the corporation has received written instructions, according to which, there is shortfall of documents submitted by the petitioners due to which, the instalt ! permissions gralted earlier have been revoked. it

¶36

¶37

¶38

PM D,J W.P.No.483 of 2023

¶39

Upon considering rival contentions, this Court finds that in a number of similar Writ Petitior-rs, it has been held that revocation of permissions without issuar-rce of notice is not sustainable. A copy of the order in one of such cases is also filed along with this Writ Petition in the writ papers. in vierv of tl-re same, this Court deems it fit and proper to set asicle the revocation or the carcellation orders dated 15.72.2022 and 17.12.2022, ancl the respondents are directed to issue shortfall ietter, il any, after considering the documents submitted by the petitioners. The respor-rdcnts are directed to take appropriate decision thereon i.e. on tirt- documcnts ar-r d the expiaination submitted thereaJter ald to pass approprizrte orders thereon and communicate the decision to the petitioners immediately thereafter.

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed

¶42

'?';t3+iNi[t3'"fHt[ //TRUE^COPY// srck#ru^oFFTTR

¶43

"':il1ff#s,::"J-ffi tr.'affi"Lli":lrigfl?"'#a;!'H#Lqil'"' I :t#'-',xitrfffillffi**ff'+tt-s-w""r.'^ d,our 6. Two^{CD CoPies} BN

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910112023

ORDER

WP.No.483 of²⁰²³

$E STA ,-e
,}
tr '(
3 tl J[il ?[?l
;./
":._ t,
..
oir',' ^-a,i'.

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

Nagula Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagula Srinivas 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

Nalla Vijendar Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

M/ s. Mega Creations Vs The State of Telangana

Shak Nayeem Pasha Vs Smt. Vakati Karuna, I.A.S.

Amukunta Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Varala Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Mohsin Bin Ibrahim Masqati Vs The State of Telangana