Disposed

Kallepalli Balaraju, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/7050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions against the Municipal Corporation for alleged unauthorized renovation. The Court held that prior permission is required under the Municipal Act and directed the authority to follow due process of law before initiating action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to follow due process of law before taking further action against the unauthorized construction.

Kallepalli Balaraju, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.7050 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kallepalli Balaraju, S/o. Anjaiah Aged about: 40 years, Occ. Business Rio. H.No. 6-570lA, Gandhi Road, Karimnagar Town and District T.S

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶12

2 The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Karimnagar Town and Diskict.

¶13

3 Smt. Neerla Laxmi, Wo. Swamy Aged about. 43 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. H.No. 64-Ka0001, Kharkhanagadda, Gandhi Road, Karimnagar, T.S

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider Petitioner representation daled. 20.02.2024, further direct the Respondents not to take any coercive action, without following due process of law and also not to entertain any proceedings, notice or correction of records in respect of Municipal records of Sy. No. 1486, the existing Tin-shed roofed house along with open place H.No. 6-5-70/A, adm. 22030 Sq.yds situated at Kharkhanagadda Village, Karimnagar town, having

¶16

Bou ndaries:^{E: H.No. 6-5-68/1 of Ors,W: 15 ft wide Rd', N: House of K Srinivas'} S: 30 ft^{wide R'd basedon private complaints in respect of Municipalrecords} pending disposal^{of the aboveWrit Petition.}

¶17

IANO:1OF²⁰²⁴

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the HighCourtmay be pleased to} direct the^{Respondentsto consider Petitionerrepresentation daled. 20.O2.2O24} ' further direct^{the Respondents1 and 2 not to take any coercive action, without} following^{due process of law, pending disposalof the writ petition.}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRIMANDHATASLK SRUTHA KEERTHI}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.1:GP FORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.2:SRIK. PRABHAKARRAO,} S.C. FOR KARIMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.3:} -

¶23

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{SRJJUSTICE T. VINODKUMAR}

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. TOSO of 2o24

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ^{Petition is fited for issuanceof Writ of Mandamus} directing^{therespondentstoconsider thepetitioner's} dt.2o .O2.2024 with a further^directionto representatioⁿ respondents^{No. I & 2 not to take any coercive action, without} following^{due processof law, and also not to entertainany} proceedings,^{notice or correctionof municipalrecords in respect of} the^{property bearing H.No.6-5-70/A admeasurir,g 22O'3O sq' yards} in survey^{No. 1486,Kharkhanagadda Village, Karimnagar,wherein} a tin-shed^{roofhouse along with open place,exists'}

¶28

Heard learned^{counselfor thepetitioner,learned} Government^{Pleaderfor Municipal Administration and Urban} Development^{appearingfor respondentNo.1, Sri K.PrabhakarRao,} learned Standing^{Counsel appearingfor respondentNo'2, and with} the consent^{of the learned counsel appearingfor the parties,the}

¶29

¶30

Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶31

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.3 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶32

Petitioner contends that he is the owner of house property vtz., a tin shed roof house along with open space bearing H.No.6-57O/A admeasuring 220.30 sq. yards situated in survey No.1486 at Kharkhanagadda Village, Karimnagar, having acquired the same by way of a Gift Deed, dt.23.04.2021.

¶33

Petitior-rer further contends that on receiving the subject property under Gift Deed, he had approached the 2nd respondentauthority seeking to affect the name change; and that the Revenue Inspector submitted a report, d1.24.O8.2O21 and again on 1O.12.2O2), confirming that the subject property belongs to the petitioner.

¶34

E{i'':lt*=

¶35

Petitioner further contends that since the subject property received under the Gift Deed is an old property, he had taken up renovation work without causing any obstruction or disturbance to others; and that the unofficial respondent No.3 for no reason had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition uide W.P.No.24270 of 2023 alleging that the petitioner is making construction without obtaining any permission/ sanction from the 2"d respondentauthority.

¶36

Petitioner further contends that on learning of the 3'd respondent approaching this Court and hling the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner had submitted a representation/ explanation to the 2"d respondent, by letter dt.2o.O2.2O24 bringing to the notice of the authorities a1l the relevant facts and the said representation submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration.

¶37

Petitioner further contends that by the aforesaid representation submitted, petitioner had even expressed^his readiness to pay penal charges for grant of^permission or^to regularize the renovation work undertaken by him to the building.

¶38

¶39

Petitioner thus, contends that the respondents-authorities be restrained from taking any coercive action against the subject construction made by the petitioner, without following due process of law.

¶40

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2"d respondent submits that the petitioner, claiming the subject property to be a tin shed roofed house, by his own admission, had taken up renovation work without obtaining permission or sanction from the authorities, for which the unofhcial respondent No.3 had approached the concerned authorities and lodged a complaint and thereafter approached this Court by hlir.rg writ petition uide W.P.No.24270 of 2023, seeking for action to be taken against the construction undertaken by the petitioner herein.

¶41

I 1. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that while the unofficial respondent No.3 is alleging inaction on the part of the 2na respondent in dealing with the unauthorized and illegal construction undertaken by the petitioner, the petitioner by the

¶42

¶43

present writ petition is seeking to restrain the respondentsauthorities from initiating any action against the alleged renovation work undertaken without permission amounting to unauthorized and iliegal construction.

¶44

However, iearned Standing Counsel further submits that the authorities would follow due process of law before taking any further action with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction made by the petitioner

¶45

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged

¶46

Section 1 74 of the Act prescribes that a prior permission is required to be obtained from the concerned authorities for construction of a building, and it includes in its ambit any reconstruction or addition or alteration made to an existing building.

¶47

Though the petitioner claims to have^got the tin shed building under a Gift Deed, having^taken up^{renovation work by} his own admission, was required^{to approach the 2nd respondent-}

¶48

¶49

¶50

authority and obtain permission before commencement of such renovation work. Admittedly, petitioner did not approach the 2"a respondent-authority and obtain any such permission.

¶51

That being so, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent-authority, who is required to ensure that no construction/alternation/renovation is undertaken without obtaining any permission, is required to take action against such unauthorized and illegal construction made within the area falling in its^{jurisdiction.}

¶52

Since the 2nd respondent-authority has indicated to this Court that the authorities would follow due process of law before taking any further action on the unauthori zed and illegal construction made by the petitioner, though in the name of renovation work, the 2nd respondent-authority is hereby directed to follow due process of law before taking further action on the subject construction made by the petitioner.

¶53

Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶54

¶55

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶56

stand closed

¶57

SD/- K.SREERAMA MUR ASSISTANT REGTS R

//TRUE GOPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal se_cretary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban 39y9L9pT?nJr ,^{State of Tetangana,Secreiariat Buitding.Secretariat.} HyoeraDad, I elangana

¶62

The commissioner, Karimnagar Municipar corporation, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶63

One CC to SRt MANDHATA SLK SRUTHA KEERTHI, Advocate [Opurj]

¶64

Two ccs to GP for Municipar Administration and Urban Deveropment. Hiqh Court for the State of Tetahgana at Hyderabaa. tO01j^{- -'- -r" -'r ' "v''}

¶65

one cc to sRl K. PRABHAKAR RAo, s.c. for Karimnagar Municipar Corporation IOPUC]

¶66

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

+
ii) 0t APR i!24
.4 '/
...t -:. -4 - .'/

¶73

ORDER

¶74

WP.No.7050 of 2024

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

A
x,y

Kallepalli Balaraju, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallepalli Balaraju, 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.Akshaya Developer Vs The state.of Telangana

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The State of Telangana

Lailaunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana

P. Vittalaiah and Brothers Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mahmood Builders Pvt. Limited, Vs the State of Telangana

Giri Raj Jain Vs The State of Telangana