Dismissed

Giri Raj Jain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/7071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-enforcement of municipal authorities regarding alleged illegal construction. The court held construction was legal due to a building permit. It directed the petitioner to await the outcome of a pending civil suit regarding mortgage disputes before further action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to await outcome of pending civil suit O.S. No. 157 of 2023 before initiating further action.

Giri Raj Jain Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | 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: 7071 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Giri Raj Jain, S/o. Amrit Jarn, aged about 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.B-3-16818.134, Laxmi Nagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad - 500035

.,.PETITIONER

AND

i i.

1 The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Greater Hyderabad [/unicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Office at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Zonal Manager, GHlvlC, Sherilingampally circle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶15

4 Kodicharla Satyamma, W/o: Late Kodicharla Krishna, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.1-41455, HAL Society, Near Prabhupadam Township, Masid Banda Kondapur, Serilingampally, R.R.District.

¶16

5 Kodicharla Rajyalakshmi, D/o. Late Kodicharla Krishna, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.1-41455, HAL Society. Near Prabhupadam Township, Ivlasid Banda Kondapur, Serilingampally, R.R.District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or order or directron one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Municipal authorities not stopping the illegal construction going on in the house bearing No.1-41455 on plot No.455 in Sy.Nos.102 (P) admeasurrnq 240 sq. yards srtuated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.Drstrict as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the

¶19

I i t

¶20

respondents to^{take action againstthe illegal constructionby considering the} representation^{daled1 2-02-2024.}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayirlg that in the circumstances stat;.'d in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take action on the illegal construction being made on th'e house bearing No.1-4l455 on plot No.455 in Sy.Nos.102 (P) admeasuring 240 sq. yards situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District when the matter is subjudice before the Vl Additional District Sessions Judge cum Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessrons Judge, cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally vide O.S No.15712023, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. R. BHARATH KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3: SRI MAK MUKHEED, SC

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 and 5:---

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINODKUMAR}

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.7O71 OF 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is frled for^{issuance of Witof} Mandamus to declare the action of^{respondentMunicipal} authorities in not stopping^{the illegal constructiongoingon in} the house bearing No.1-4/455^{on plot No.455 inSy.} Nos.1O2(P) admeasuring 240^{squareyards situatedat} Kondapur village, Serilingampally^{Mandal,R-R. District,as} being arbitrary, illegal,^{and in violation of Articles14 and 2l} of the Constitution of^{India with a consequentialdirectionto} the respondents authorities to^{considerthe representation of} the petitioner dated 12.02.2024.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for^{the petitioner,learned} Govemment Pleader for^{MunicipalAdministration and Urban} Development appearing for^{respondentNo. 1, SriMAK} Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel,^{appearing for} respondent Nos.2 and 3,^{and with the consent of the learned} counsel appearing for the^{parties,the Writ Petitionis taken} up for hearing and disposal^{at the stageof admission-}

¶33

¶34

Having regard^{to the manner of disposalof the Writ} Petition at the^{admissionstage, and the lis involved in this Writ} Petition, this Court^{is of the view' that notice to unofhcial} respondent Nos.4^{and 5 is not necessaryfor adjudicationof the} present Writ Petition.

¶35

Petitioner contends^{that the husband of the4th} respondent^{had taken loan of a sum of Rs'31 lakhs and in} order to secure^{the aforesaid loan had executedsimple} mortgage deed^{withpossessiondated O7'O1'2O19of the} subject Property^{in his favour.}

¶36

Petitioner further^{contendsthat sincethe aforesaid loan} amount was not^{paid by the 4tr' respondent'shusbandand} had died leaving^{behindthe unollicial respondentNos 4 and} 5, the petitioner^{had calledupon the unoffrcialrespondent} No.4 to^{pay the amountof loan taken by the 4e respondent's} husband.

¶37

Petitioner further^{contends that inspiteof the demand} being made^{by the petitioner on the unofhcial respondentfor} the repayment^{of the said amountand as the respondents} have failed to^{make such sum good, the petitioner had}

¶38

¶39

I t i

¶40

approached^{the competentCourt of civil jurisdictionand had} instituted a suit^{for recoveryof the aforesaid sum' uide} proceedings in O.S.^{No. 157 of 2023 and the sarne are} pending.

¶41

Petitioner further^{contendsthat while the aforesaidsuit} frled by him for^{recoveryof the moniesadvancedto the 5o} respondent's^{husband is pendingconsideration' the unofficial} respondents^{are makingthe constructionby demolishingthe} house, which has^{been mortgagedto secure the amount} advanced^{by the petitio ner, uide document dated O7'O1'2O19'}

¶42

Petitioner further^{contendsthat the said construction} being made by^{theunoffrcial respondentisiilegal} construction and^{tJlat he had approachedthe respondent} authorities by submitting^{representationdated 72'02'2024} calling upon tJre^{respondentauthorities to take action against} the said illegal^{construction being made by the unofhcial} respondent and^{inspite of submittingrepresentation'no} action is taken.

¶43

g. Per antra,^{learned Standing Counsel appearlng on} Uef,af oild'Spondent^{Nos.2and 3 submits that the unofficial}

¶44

¶45

respondents are making^{constructionby obtaining building} permission from the respondent authority,^{urde proceedings} d.ated 23.07.2021.

¶46

10.^. Learned Standing^{Counsel further submits that the} simple mortgage deed on^{the basis of which the petitioner is} claiming that the subject^{propertyis mortgagedin his favour} is not a registered document for the^{authoritiesto consider} and also being^petitioner in^{possession, contrary to the claim} of the petitioner.

¶47

I 1 . Learned Standing^Counsel further^{submits that the} authorities for^grant of^{building permissionare only required} to consider^prima facie title^{ard possession of the subject} property and since the unofficial^{respondents are admittedly} the owncrs of the subject^{propertybelongingto her husband} had applied for grant of building^{permission and the} authorities satisfying the above^{said twonecessary} concomitants, had^{granted permission and thereforethe} construction^{beingmadeby the unofficial respondent cannot} be termed as^{illegalconstruction.}

¶48

¶49

l,earned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner having instituted the civil proceedings would have to take further steps in tJle aforesaid proceeding and inasmuch as no injunction order was granted, the authorities cannod take any further action in the matter.

¶50

t earned Standing Counsel further submits that even before the petitioner had instituted the civil suit against the unoffrcial respondent, the unofficial respondent had obtained building permission in July, 2O2L itself and therefore the construction undertaken by the unoflicial respondent cannot be called an illegal construction for the said reason also.

¶51

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶52

Though the petitioner claims that the construction being made by the unoflicial respondent is an illegal construction, it is to be seen that the construction made by the unofhcial respondent is pursuant to a building permit order dated 23.07.2021 obtained by the unofficial respondent under TS-bPASS Act, 2O2O ftom the respondent authorities. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of the said construcrion is an illegaI construction cannot be accepted.

¶53

¶54

In so far as the claim of the petitioner of the subject property having been mortgaged in favour of the petitioner with possession uid.e documerat dated 07.OL.2OIg is concerned, since the same is subject matter of civil proceeding uide O.S. No.157 of 2023 before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should await the result of suit before initiating any further action against the subject property and cannot approach the respondent authority for taking any action as respondent authorities cannot adjudicate the disputes relating to title, mortgage or other disputes and are only required to consider prima facie title and possession for grant of building permission.

¶55

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner having invoked the civil remedies would have to take further steps only upon obtaining order in the said civil proceedings zrlready instituted.

¶56

Subject to the above observation, ttre Writ petition is disposed of.

a- EL*

It is^{made clear this Court has not expressedany}

¶61

opinion on^{the meritsof the matter'} No costs.

¶62

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending in this writ}

¶63

petition shall^standclosed.

¶64

SD/. V. HARI^PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTTON FFICER

To,

1 The Princioal Secretary,^{Department of MunicipalAdministration' Secretariat'} rne State bt^{Telanganb,HYderabad'}

¶69

2 The commrssioner.^{Greateiiivo"ru"oMunicipal corporation, officeat} Lower Tank Bund.^HYderabad' -sherilinsampallv circle' Ranga Reddv District'

¶70

3 iil]7""1r'rtrZ"lgti,'GHlt/c, Telanoana.

¶71

4 dnE ic'i; Sri^{P R Bharath Kumar' Advocate[oPUCl}

¶72

65 g;:E:*"t.ayt"lMxli:ff i'i.",1""I'.',,:l**o,nDeveropment,Hishcourt roiin" sl.G^{of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]}

¶73

7 Two CD CoPies

TJ GJP N*2

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 910312024

ORDER

i^{, WP.No.7071of 2024}

¶79

--": :1-- .---:.<br>{j
oo 3 0 r'1AY 2024 t/
a
D
't ar.4.T C Hi'-c

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶81

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶82

$
\5 .,q
9P

Giri Raj Jain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giri Raj Jain 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

Marwadi Hindi Vidyalaya , Vs The State of Telangana