Disposed

Smt. Raja Rajula Gandamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024WP/22047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought cancellation of building permission granted to a party in a partition suit via writ petition. The court noted the suit was restored after the ex-parte decree was set aside and disposed of the writ by granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the suit and approach authorities subsequently.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to pursue the suit O.S.No.390 of 2014 and approach authorities subsequently.

Smt. Raja Rajula Gandamma Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22047 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Raja Rajula Gandamma, W/o Yadaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ.Household. Rl/o H.No.9-92, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'I . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Narsingi Municipality, Narsingi, Rangareddy District.

¶13

The Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road,Srinivas Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038

¶14

The Director Planning-1, Hyderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Swarna Jayan. Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road, Srinivas Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038

¶15

IM/s GEM VIVENDAS (P) LTD, having its Regd. Office At2-7211, Plot No.1, Megha Hills. Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri.E.Venkatesh S/o tVluthyalu, Aged about 33 Years, Rl/o H.No.27211 , Plot No.1, Megha Hills, IMadhapur, Ayyappa Society Road, Kothaguda, Rangareddy, Hyderabad-84

¶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 one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in not considering the Petitioner's Representation daled.14-06-2023 for Cancellation of Building Permission vide No. 0403571 ZOAI R1iU6/ HMDA106112020, dated.17-06-2021 granted to the 5th Respondent, as

¶18

illegal arbitrary and violative of the principal of natural^justice and in violation of the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 5th Respondent not to make any further construction in the petitioners property, land Adm. Acs.2-04 Gts in Sy.No.2/AA, situated at Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District, as per the Preliminary Decree dated. 28-09-2020 in O S.No.390 of 2014 on the file of the Learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, allotting 1/3rd share to the Petitioner and 1/3rd share to her brother and sister, Pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt.2211012024 in lA.No.2/2023

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MEHABOOB ALl, REP. FOR SRI K.CHANDRA MOULY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.MALLA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSHMAN

¶26

WRIT PETTTION No.22^{O47 of2o23}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

. Heard Sri Mehaboob Ali,^{learned counsel,} representing Sri K. Chandra^{Mouli, learnedcounsel} appearing for the^{petitioner, learnedAssistantGovernment} Pleader for Municipal^{AdministrationandUrban} Development appearing^for respondent^{No' 1,} Sri G. Malla Reddy,^{Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for} respondent No.2, Sri^{V. Narsimha Goud, learnedStanding} Counsel appearing for^{respondent Nos.3 and 4and} Sri D. Jagan Mohan^{Reddy, Iearned counsel appearing for} respondent No.5.^{Perused the record.}

¶29

Perusal of the record^{would reveal that the petitioner} herein has fi1ed a suit^{vide O.S.No.390 of 2014 against} Mukkidi @ Chakali^{Yadammaand three others seeking} partition and separate^{possessionof the suit schedule} property. The same^{was decreed ex-parte on 28'O9'2O2O'}

¶30

3 Sri D. Jagan Mohan^{Reddy, learned counsel appearing} for respondent^{No.5, on instructions,would submit that}

¶31

respondent No.S has aiready filed a petition uide I.A. No.2O9 of 2023 to set aside the said ex-parte preliminar5r Judgment and Decree and the petitioner being the plaintiff reported no objection to the said application. Therefore, the said application was allowed and ex-parte preliminar5r Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.39O of 2Ol4 rvas set aside. The suit is restored and it is posted for trial. He further submits that the petitioner has already hled an application in O.S.No.390 of 2Ol4 to implead respondent No.S as defendant to the said suit. The said I.A is pending. He further submits that respondent No.5 has purchased the subject property from defendant No.4.

¶32

Perusal of record would further reveal that basing on the said ex-parte preliminary Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2O2O in O.S.No.39O of 2014, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to cancel the permission issued in favour of respondenl No.5.

¶33

Sri V. Narsimha Goud and Sri G. Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2

¶34

¶35

¶36

to 4, ort instructions, would submit that the petitioner has to wait for the outcome of the said suit or pursue the said suit and obtain orders, then approach respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking cancellation of the permission granted in favour of respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 will consider the same.

¶37

In the light of the said submissions and subsequent facts, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting libert5r to the petitioner to pursue the said suit uid.e O.S.No.39O of 2Ol4 and obtain orders, then approach respondent Nos.2 to 4 by filing a representation for implementation of the same. On receipt of the such representation, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶39

*',3?tNrHAS?ffiH //rRUE COPY// u SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶42

The Commissioner, Narsingi Municipality, Narsingi, Rangareddy District.

¶43

The Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road,Srinivas Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038

¶44

The Director Planning-|,^{Hyderabad MetropolitanDevelopment.Authority} (HMDA), Swarna Jayin. Cohplex, Sanjeeva Reddy^{Nagar Road.Srinivas} Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500⁰³⁸

¶45

One CC to SRI^{K.CHANDRA IVOULY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI^{B.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI^{V.NARSIMHAGOUD'SC FORHIMDA} [OPUC]

¶48

B. One CC to SRI^{G.MALLA REDDY,SC FOR MCPL} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP^{FOR IVICPLADMN URBAN DEV'HighCourt for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

10.Two CD Copies

BSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211012024

ORDER

WP.No.22047 ot 2023

t )=r,,{ .<br>(i
O 0 6 illu ;e2{
:+

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

,4-<br>(> |
){'nP1

Smt. Raja Rajula Gandamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raja Rajula Gandamma 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

Siliveru Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Mamatha, Vs State of Telangana

Smt.N.Seshamma Vs The state of Telangana and 3 others

Emmadishetti Devender Vs Sri Nageswar Rao

Smt. Vanga Hemalatha Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Ganga House Residents Welfare Association Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation