Allowed

Sri Dr Ramachandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2024WP/6811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside an impugned order validly issued by the G.H.M.C. alleging unauthorized construction of a hospital. The Court held that in the absence of material proving hospital use, the order was invalid, though authorities were permitted to issue a fresh notice regarding pending repair works.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding dated 05.03.2024 bearing No. UC/1351/TPS/C-2/LBNZGHMC/2024 is set aside; authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notice regarding repair works.

Sri Dr Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO TtIOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6811 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Sri Dr Ramachandraiah, S/o. Late Krishnaiah, Age.67 yrs, Occ. Doctor, Fi./o. ' H. No 3-9-2lB and 3-9-2lBl1, Sharada Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad., T.S.

¶10

Anush Doma, S/o. D. Ramachandraiah, Age.36 yrs, Occ. Doctor, R/o. H. No 3-9-2lB and 3-9-2lBl1, Sharada Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad., T.S.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, TS,

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. TS

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle^- 2, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. TS

¶16

The Assistant City Planner, Uppal Circle- 2, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. TS

¶17

The Sharada Nagar Colony Welfare Association, Sharada Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. TS

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Anide 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 or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings bearing No. UC/1351/TPS/C-2|LBNZGHMC|2O24 dated 05-03-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, void, ultra-virus, unconstitutional and in violation of Principles of Mtural Justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporalion, Act, 1955 in the interest of^justice and equity.

¶20

lA NO: 1 F 2024

¶21

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the operation of the impugned^{proceedings bearing No. UC/1351iTPS/C-} 2/LBNZGHMC t2024 dated 05-03-2024^{issuedby the 3rd respondentwithout} following due process of law.,^{pending disposat of the writ petition in the interest of} justice and equity-

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^AM. QURESHI,^{SENIOR COUNSEL FOR} Ms. SALEHA BEGUM

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'l : GP FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No's 2 to 4 : SRI.M. DURGA PRASAD}

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR EIRIT PETITION No. 68ll of 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mand.amus to declare the impugned proccedings^{No.UCl1351/TPS/C-} 2/LBNZ/GHMC/2024, dt.Os.O3.2O24,^issued by^{the 3'a respondent} as being illegal, arbitrary, ultra-virus, unconstitutional andⁱⁿ 'riolation^{of principles of natural justice and contrary to the} provisions of the Greater Hyrlcrabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short the ActJ.

¶30

Heard Sri A.M.Qureshi, k:arned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for thc^{petitioners, learnedGovernment} Pleader for Municipal Administralion and Urban^Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri^{M.DurgaPrasad, learned} Standing Counsel appearing for^{respondents No.2 to 4, and with} the consent of the^{leamed courrscl appearing for the parties,the} Writ Petition is taken up for^{hcaring and disposal at the stage of} admission. r

Having rrgard to^{the mannerof disposal of the Writ Petition} at the admission^{stage,and the /is involved in this Writ Petition,} this Court is^{of the view that noticeto unofficial respondentNo'S is} not necessary^{for adjudicationof the presentWrit Petition'}

¶35

Petitioners contend that^{they are the ownersand possessors} of the^{premises bearing H.Nos.3-9-2/B &3-9-2lB/1 each} admeasuring^{175 sq. yards in suruey No.38/3situatedat Sharada} Nagar, Ramanthapur,^{Hyderabad,having pirrchased the same} under registered^{sale deeds from its previousowner.}

¶36

Petitioners further contend^{that there exist aresidential} building consisting of^{Groundr-2 upper floors,which has been} constructed^{by obtaining buildingpermission,dt.29.O1.1999;that} the 3.a respondent^{without actually taking notc of the fact that the} subject building^is used^{as a residentialhouse,at the behest of the} official respondent^{had issued a show-cause notice,dt.2O.O2.2O24,} alleging that the^petitioners are^{undertaking constructionof a} hospital in the subject^premises; that^{the petitioners in response} I thereto had^submitted their^{explanationon 26.O2.2024informing}

¶37

¶38

the 3'd respondent that^{nonew construction oradditional} construction is^{being madeby thcm and they have only taken up} repair f renewal/^{renovationwork at the subjectpremises;and that} the 3.d respondent-authority^{without considering the petitioner's} explanation, had^{passedthe impugnedorder holding that the} petitioners are making^{construction of a hospitaland that the} petitioners did not^{submit sanction copiesfor making renovation of} building consisting^{of Ground+ 3 Upper floors.}

¶39

Per contra, learned^{StandingCounselappearing on behalf of} the respondents^{submits that the permission, which was obtained} in respect of the^{subject property in the year 7999 was only} Ground⁺ 2 upper^{floors for using the sarne as a residentialhouse;} and that the^{petitionersby their admission,admitto the fact of} taking up renovation/repair^{work therein, without obtainingany} permission, as required under^{Section428(21 of the Act.}

¶40

Learned Standing Counsei^{further submits thatthe} petitioners except stating that they are^{not taking up any new} construction or additional^{construction, did not deny the fact of the}

¶41

lllE!

¶42

¶43

said building^{being used for hospital and as suchthe authorities} have^{passed theSpeaking Order holding lheconstruction} undertaken^{by the petitionersto be unauthorizedar,d called upon} the petitioners^{to bring the building inconformity with the} sanctioned Plan^{of the} Year¹⁹⁹⁹

¶44

In reply, learned^{Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the} petitioners asserts^{that the subject building is not beir-rg used or} proposed to be used^{for hospitaland that the petitioners had only} taken up renovation^{of the existing residential buildingbeingan} old structure.

¶45

g. Learned Senior^{Counsel furthcr submits that the impugned} order only^{makes a referertce to the subjectconstruction being} taken up for^{construction ofhospital, which claim ofthe} respondents^{is incorrect, and thcrefore the impugned order cannot} be sustained.

¶46

I have^{taken note of the respectivecontentions urged'}

¶47

Having^{regard to the submission made,and taking note of} the speciirc assertion^{of the petitioners that the subject building}

continues to be an individual residential building and no construction of hospital at thc said premises is undertaken; and that the claim of the respondents in the show-cause notice as well as in the Speaking Order being contrary to the ground situation and since the petitioners have only taken up renovation work of the existing old building, in absence of respondents-authorities bringing on record any material to show the use of the subject building as 'hospital', this Court is of the view that the impugrred order passed by the 3'd rcspondent-authority holding the construction taken uf by the pctitioners by construing the same as for the purpose of hospital, cannot be held to be valid.

¶53

Accordingly, the impugned proceeding, dt.05.O3.2024 issued by the 3.d respondent is sct aside. However, respondentsauthorities are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the peLitioners with regard to the repair works that have been undertaken by them in the subject prem'ises warranting obtaining of permission from the concerned authorities as required under Section 428(21 of t}re Act, and that upon the petitioners submitting explanalion, take further action thereon, in accordance with law.

(

. Subject^{to the aboveobst:rvations ancl directions' the Writ}

¶58

Petition is^{disposed of. No ord<:ras to costs'}

¶59

Consequently,^{miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall}

¶60

stand closed

¶61

Sd/. A V. S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGPTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

o SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal^{Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development} ' ffi;r#;il secretaii6t, Siitaoao, state of relangana Hvderabad' TS'

¶66

The chief^{commissioner,office at Tank Bund, Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation^HYderabadTS

¶67

The Deoutv Commissioner,^{Uppal Circle - 2, Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporitioh, Hyderabad.^TS

¶68

4.TheAssistantCityPlanner,UppalCircle-2,GrealerHyderabadMunicipal Corporation,^{HYderabad. TS}

¶69

The Sharada^{Nagar Colony Welfare Association, Sharada Nagar'} RamanthaPur,^Htderabad.TS

¶70

One CC to^{SRl. A.M. QURESHI Advocate [OPUC]}

¶71

One CC to^{SRl.M. DURGA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]}

¶72

S.TwoCCstoGPFoRNrcPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at^HYderabad. [OUT]

¶73

Two CD^CoPies

i,t _$

F.
f,

HIGH COURT

TVK,J

DATED:1510312024

o R i tlE S14 14-
(
cJ ort
i.)
0 s APB 2024
f.C)
*
t)6,1PAtctl iot

¶81

ORDER

¶82

WP.No.6811 of 2024

¶83

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶84

WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

9-<br>

Sri Dr Ramachandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dr Ramachandraiah 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

Pandavula Umesh Vs The State of Telangana

Pittala Ashok, Vs The State of Telangana

Mallampet Sailu Vs The State of Telangana

T. Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Varikuppala Buchiramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Basireddy Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana