Disposed

Siliveru Thirupathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Oct 2024WP/28828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a municipal order directing removal of his construction as being within the FTL of Mallapuranikunta tank. The Court found the survey was conducted without notice and the order ignored his explanation, violating natural justice, set it aside, permitted a fresh survey after notice, and restrained dispossession meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 08.10.2024 set aside; fresh survey permitted with notice; respondents barred from dispossessing petitioner until then.

Siliveru Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

t^3168I

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28828 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Siliveru Thirupathi, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 53 years, Occ- Employee, R/o. H.No. 6-1-36/4/1/R3, Srinagar Colony, Vinayakanagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District

¶10

...pETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

'l . The State of Telangana, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

1. The Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Peddepalli District.

¶14

3, The Assistant City Planner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Peddepalli District.

¶15

The Town Planning Officer, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Peddepalli District

¶16

...RESPoNDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records and^quash the impugned Proceedings ROC No. G1l42tfPSl2024 dated 08.102024 issued by the 2nd respondent declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, and in voilation of Principal of Natural Justice and to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalies Act, 20¹⁹ and Article 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive steps in respect of house no.6-¹ -36/A/1/R3 with PTIN No. 1104053849, in survey no. 171812, admeasuring 150 sq.^yards situated at Srinagar Colony internal Road Locality, Malkapur Village, Godavrikhani, under the limits of^Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Peddapalli District.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section I51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including demolition of petitioner house no. 6- 1-36 /A/ 1lR3 with PTIN No. 1104053849, in survey no. 1718t2, admeasuring 1s0 sq. yards,, situated at Srinagar corony internar Road Locarity, Markapur Viilage, Godavrikhan i, under the rimits of Ramagundam Municipar corporation, peddapali District pursuant to the issuance of impugned proceedings bearing ROC No.G1/42ITPS12024 dated 08.10.2024 by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition forthwith.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, SC FOR MPCL

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶23

1VRIT PETITION N0.28828 of 2o24

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

¶26

Petitioner is claiming that he has purchased an open plot in Sy.No.17lBl2, admeasuring 150 Sq. yards beside house No.6-L-36/A/l/R3, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1783 of 2023 dated 16.06.2023. His vendor obtained building permit order bearing No.69647lRAMG/O576/2O2t, dated La.oB.2O2t from respondent No.2 for construction of ground floor basing on the report dated 20.06.2019 of the Deputy Executive Engineer, IB Sub Division, Ramagundam sent to the Tahsildar, Ramagundam. In the said report dated

¶27

20.06.2019, the Deputy Executive Engineer, IB Sub Division, Ramagundam, informed the Tahsildar that the

proposed site is not lalling in FTL of any tank and there is no impact upon the ayacut of immediate neighbouring agricultural lands or water bodies on account of the change of agricultural land in Sy.No. l7 lB / 1 , admeasuring Ac.0- 12 gts., into non-agricultural purpose in favour of one Sri Syed Khasim, S/o.Mahboob - vendor's vendor of the petitioner. On consideration of the same only, respondent No.2 has issued building permit order, dated 18.O8.2021.

¶32

According to the petitioner, he has completed construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order, dated L3.OB.2OT,. He is in possession of the subject pr()perty. He has been paying property tax to respondent No.2 Municipality.

¶33

While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 has issued Show Cause Notice, dated 25.09.2024 stating that the subject property is in FTL of Mallapuranikunta Shikam in Sy.No.173 of Ramagundam and seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit expianation. He has submitted explanation on 3O.O9.2O24. Vide impugned

d.e----

speaking order dated O8.1O.2024 respondent^{No.2 directed} the petitioner to remove the un-authorized^construction holding that the subject property^{is inF*tL of} Mallapuranikunta Shikam^{in Sy.No.173 of Ramagundam.}

¶38

Perusal of the speaking order^{dated08.10 .2024 would} reveal that the District^{Collector, Peddapalli has issued} proceedings dated 19.09.2024 directing^{respondent Nos.2} to 4 to remove the encroachments^{and illegal constructions} at FTL and Buffer Zone limits^{ofMallapuranikunta,} Malkapur village of Ramagundam^{mandal. Thereafter a} survey was conducted. According^{to respondent No.2, the} subject property is in FTL of^{Mallapuranikunta Shikam in} Sy.No. 173 of Ramagundam.^{In the impugnedspeaking} order there is no mention about^{putting the petitioner and} all interested parties on notice^{and affordingthem an} opportunity while conducting^survey.

¶39

As discussed supra,^{vide report dated 20.06.2019the} Deputy Executive Engineer,^{IB Sub Division,Ramagundam,} informed the Tahsildar,^{Ramagundamthat the proposed}

¶40

¶41

¶42

site is not falling in FTL of any tank and there is no impact upon the ayacut of immediate neighbouring agricultural lands or water bodies on account of the change of the agricultural land in Sy.No.1718/1, admeasuring Ac.O-12 gts., into non-agricultural purpose. Vide proceedings dated 31.07.2OL9 respondent No.2 also informed the Tahsildar, Ramagundam that the subject property is not falling in FTL.

¶43

According to the petitioner, the subject property is in Sy.No.lTLB/2 of Ramagundam. Whereas according to respondent No.2, the said property is in Sy.No. I73 of Mallapuranikunta Shikam. The alleged survey was conducted without putting the petitioner on notice and affording him an opportunier. After hve years, without putting the petitioner on notice without aflording an opportunity, respondent No.2 can't claim that the subject property is in Sy.No.173, Mallapuranikunta Shikam, Ramagundam. Therefore, the impugned speaking order is in violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities

¶44

¶45

Act,2OI9.^{The afore-statedfacts are specifically mentioned} in explanation^{dated 3O.O9.2O24tothe notice dated} 25.Og.2O24.^{RespondentNo.2 did not consider the said} aspects.^{Thus, the impugned speakingorder is not on} consideration^{of the explanation dated30'09 '2024and the} aforesaid^{aspects' Therefore, the impugned speakingorder} dated 08.^{lO.2O24of respondent No'2 is liable to be set} aside.

¶46

In^{view of the aforesaid discussion,this Writ Petition} is disposed^{of. The impugnedproceedings datedO8' 10'2024} of respondent^{No.2 are set aside' However, liberty is} granted to respondent^{No'2 to conduct fresh survey, strictly} in accordance^{with law, by putting the petitioner and all} interested^{parties onnotice and affording them an} opportunity.^{On conducting of such survey, if the subject} property is falling^{in FTL of MallapuranikuntaShikamin} Sy.No. 173^{of Ramagundam,libertSris granted to respondent} Nos.2 to^{4 to take actionagainst the petitioner,strictlyin} accordance^{with law, more particularly the procedure laid} down under^{the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019' Till the}

¶47

¶48

aforesaid exercise is completed, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to proceed with further and not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Liberty is also granted to respondent No. 1 to take action against the then Deputy Executive Engineer, IB Sub Division, Ramagundam and the then Commissioner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, who issued reports dated 20.06 .2019 and 37.07.2079 respectively to the Tahsildar, Ramagundam. There shail be no order as to costs.

¶49

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

¶50

SD/.P. PADMANABHA^RE DY ASSISTANT REGIS R ,TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶51

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary,MunicipalAdministratlon and Urban Development} Deoartment. Secretariat.^{Hyderabad, State of Telangana}

¶52

Th6 Commissioner,^{Ramagundam Municipal Corporatton, Peddepalli District} 5. Tfre Assistant^{City Planner, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation' Peddepalli} District.

¶53

The Town^{Planning Officer, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Peddepalli} District.

¶54

One CC^{to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

O. f*o CCs^{to GPFOR MCPLADMN & URBAN DEV,HighCourt for the State} of Telanoana, at Hvderabad. IOUTI 7 one cc"to sRl^{KA-DARUPRABHAkARRAO,SC FOR MPCL} [OPUC] B Two '!"vvv CD Copies vv.vn PSK. \ P LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:18110t2024

ORDER

WP.No.28828 of 2024

THE S?a
(o ?. !u{
\1<br>o
(-)
06 N0\l znil :i
(> l,
-,./

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS. (k <fffi4 \ CO\JA.

Siliveru Thirupathi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siliveru Thirupathi 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

M/s Mekka Madina Trust for Education and another Vs Union of India ans 2 Others

Mohammed Mustafa Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Faqruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Mamatha, Vs State of Telangana

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

Tirmalamma Vs Sri Koya Sree Harsha