Disposed

Pittala Ashok, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2024WP/6644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging demolition orders for unauthorized construction without delving into merits, holding that since authorities passed a speaking order, the petitioner must pursue statutory appeal remedies under the GHMC Act. The court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy under Sections 654 and 655 of the Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pittala Ashok, Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

I I I I

i I I

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

¶6

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 6644 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Pittala Ashok, s/o Sattaiah,.Aged 51. years, occ. Business, Rl/o opp H.No.29-139i1, Opp. Plot no.121 Deendayal Nagar, Vlnayai< Nagar tUalkajgiii.^{- ---}

¶12

.....PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . Tlrc State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, Municipalitv and U rba n Devetopmerit Departmeit, s""i.ijr,rt e, ii Jiiig'., Hydli$;j.^-""

¶15

Z. !lg.Dy..Commissioner, GHIVIC, Matkajgiri Division, Malkajgiri, Medchat_ Malkajgiri District.

¶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 too declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 in passing demolition orders vide 3434luclc1R-28lTPS/GHMCt2o24 dated 23.02.2024 served on 02.03.2024 on the ground that un-authorised construction of petitioner from plot bearing No.125,1251A, in Sy. No. 322 Adrneasuring 400 Se. yards, situated at OPP. H No.29-139/1 , Opp. Plot No.12.1 , Deendayal Nagar, Malkajgiri Medchal_ Malkajgiri District, without following the procedure contemplated under law and even without therebeihng any right over the property to the respondents as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and is in negation of the established Judicial Precedents besides in violation of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia apart from in violation of principles of natural justice, lair play and the same may be set-as_ide, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land of the petitioner.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition Under section 1s'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend demorition orders vide 3434/uc/crR-21fipsrGHMCt2o24 dated 23.02.2024 served on 02.O3.2024 on the ground that ,,un_authorised construction" of petitioner from prot bearing No.12s,125rA, in Sy. No. 322, Admeasuring 400 SQ. yards, situated at Opp. H No.29_139/1 , Opp. plot No.121, Deendayal Nagar, Malkajgiri Medchal-Malkajgiri District, passed by the respondent nos.2, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the^petitioner : SRI G.ESWARAIAH

¶21

counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Gp FoR McpL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.RAVTNDER REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.6 6440F 20.24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed for' issuance of Wit of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in passing the speaking order dated 23.02.2024 served on the petitioner on O2.O3.2O24 in respect of plot bearing Nos. 125, 125/A in Sy. No.322, admeasuring 400 square yards situated at Deendayal Nagar, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkaj giri District, without following due procedure contemplated under law and even without there being any right over the property, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper ald is in negation of the established Judicial Precedents besides in violation of Articles 2l and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1; Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, and witJ the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Pelition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶28

¶29

Petitioner contends^that he^{being the GPAholder of the} owner of open plot bearing^{No.l25 in Sy. No.322, standing in} the name of P. Navaneetha,^{the wife of the petitionerand S'} Vijayalakshmi had approached^{the respondentauthoritiesand} obtained two separate^{buildingpermissions for construction of} two separate individual^{residentialbuildings;thatthe} respondent authorities^{have issuedpermissions dated} 04.O7.2023 permitting^{the petitioner to undertake construction} of individual residential^{buildings in a net plot area of 160'24} square meters, after^{excludingthe Road Affected atea of 6'96} square meters mentioning^{therein the setbackswhich the} petitioner is required to maintain^{whileundertakingthe} afore said constructions.

¶30

Petitioner further^{contends ttrat while proceeding with the} construction in accordance:^{with the separate individual} building permissions^{obtained, he wasserved with showcause} nolice dated O5.O2.2O24^{callingupon him to submitexplanation} thereto holding that^{the petitioneris makingunauthorized} construction of^{ground + 4 upper floors, while the petitionerwas} granted permission for construction^{of only stilt for parking + 2} upper floors and also not maintaining^{the setbacks.}

¶31

¶32

Petitioner further contends that the respondent authorities thereafter passed a speaking order dated 23.02.2024 holding the construction being made by the petitioner representing the owners of the propert5r as unauthorized and illegal and directed the petitioner to remove the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which the authorities would take further action in terms of the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, which action it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was served with show cause notice dated O5.O2.2O23 and was afforded seven days time to submit the explanation to the same. As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, the authorities have passed tJle impugned speaking order holding the construction being made by the petitioner to be in deviation of the sanctioned plan which permitted only stilt for parking + 2 upper floors, while the construction being made by the petitioner in the building is consisting of stilt + 4 upper floors.

¶34

7 . Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the respondent authorities did not receive any reply to the show

¶35

¶36

cause notice, the^{authorilies have passed the speakingorder} dated 23.02.2024^{and' the said speakingorder has been served} on the petitio ner^{on O2.O3.2O24} '

¶37

l,earned Standing^{Counselfurther submits that sincethe} petitioner has an effective^{remedy of Appeal under the Act' the} petitioner should. be^{relegated to avail the remedy'}

¶38

g. Having regard to^{the submissionsmadeas above'without} delving into^{the details of the issue involved'since the} authorities have'^{passedaspeaking order holding the} construction^{being made by the petitioner to be unauthorized} and illegal and in^{deviationof the sanctionedplan,this Courtis} of the view that^{no indulgencecan be shown in exerciseof} jurisdiction under Article^{226 of the Constitutionof India and} thus the^{petitioner should bi relegated to avail the remedyof} Appeal^{provided underSectioB654 and 655 of the GHMCAct by} approaching^{the competent authority/ Court'}

¶39

Granting^{liberty to the petitionerto availthe remedyas} provided under^{the Act, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No} costs.

¶40

1 1. At this^{stage petitioner who is theauthorized} representative^{and GPA holder expresses apprehensionas to the}

¶41

¶42

appeal to be filed by him not being entertained, it is made clear that in the event of petitioner hling appeal as representing the owners in whose name the building permissions are obtained, can be entertained subject to compliance of Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice.

¶43

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶45

petition shall stand.closed. No order as to costs.

¶46

SD/.C.PRAVEEN^KU AR ASSISTANT^REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{Municipalityand Urban Devdlopment Department'} $;*i;iLiBrilaings,^{State of Telangana at Hvderabad'} 2. ffi ' il' 6;;G;6;;, c H H,ri, Haat[a;siri Division' Malkajsiri' Medchallvtalkaioiri District. 3. Tfr:lflEl';'eilFon^{r,ncpl ADMNAND URBAN DEV,Hish court for the} Siaie of tetangana^{at Hyderabad' [OUT]} - ^- 4 o".-ct io Sri-G.Eswardiah,^{Advocate [OPUC-]-.} .^. 5 il; CC io sii^{r.navinoerReddv, Advocate(oPUC)} b Two CD CoPies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410312024

ORDER

WP.No.6644 of 2024

,1,:, 1 S T
() ,U' /1,
/)
i'
3 0 II A Y 2 D2{
t:' )
* ..,/
. ...i: 'z)'

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS. .! @bt' W*

Pittala Ashok, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pittala Ashok, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rasheed Jabri, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. S.Neeta Jain Vs State of Telangana and 7 Others

Smt. Sridevi, Vs The Commissioner

Pandavula Umesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mallampet Sailu Vs The State of Telangana

Hazari Sanjay Singh Vs The State of Telangana