Kalyani Kannaiah Mokkapati Vs The State of Telangana

Kalyani Kannaiah Mokkapati, W/o. Purushothama Rao, aged 51^years,r/o. 2022, Lemonwood Ct. , San Ramon, California, 94582, U. S. A, Represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, Nihanth Krishna Vukanti.

¶10

...pETt,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue^{(UC -} ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Abids, Hyderabad-

¶14

The Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

4 The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, CC Complex, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶16

6

¶17

The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, GHtVC, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent with regard to non- regularizing the surplus land admeasuring 501. 60 square meters in Plot No. 82 in Survey No. 67, Madhapur Village, Ranga Reddy District,^pursuant to the application no. F 1145512625/2005 submitted by the vendor of the petitioner namely Smt. K. Nageswari and to declare the action of the 6th respon.dpnt in issuing proceedings dated 29- 04- 2024 rejecting the change of building permission from residential to hostel and to set aside the same by issuing consequential direction to dispose of the application no. F114551262512O05 pending before the 2nd respondent herein and by further declaring that the impugned inaction as being illegal, arbitrary and resulting in infringing the rights guaranteed under Article t 9(t Xg) and 300- A of the Constitution of lndia

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 6th respondent to reconsider the change of buirding permission without insisting the Urban Land ceiling clearance certificate and without reference to proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pRABHAKARA CHANDRA MOULI, SEN]OR COUNSEL FOR SRI SATYA SADHAN CHALAMALA

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI D. V. CHALAPATHT RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶24

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 6: SRI M. A. K. MUKHEED

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.l71 04 0F 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Thg writ petition is filed scekiirg following relief:

¶30

"...to issue a writ direction or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2n<I rcspondent with regard to non regular-izing thc surplus land admeasuring 501.60 square meters in Ptot No.82 in Survey No.67 Madhapur Village Ranga Reddy District pur.slrant to the application no F I /4551262512005 submitted by the vendor of the petitioncr namely Smt. K. Nageswari and to declare the action of thc 6,1, rcspondent in issuing proceedings dated 29.04.2024 rejecting the change of building per-rnission from residential to hostcl and to set aside thc same by issuing consequential direction to dispose of the application no.F | 14551262512005 pending before the 2"d responclcnt herein and by further declaring that the impugned inaction as being illegal arbitrary and resulting in infringing the rights guaranteed under Articlc 19(1)(g) and 300 A of the Constitution of India and pass ..."

¶31

2 Heard Mr. Prabhakara Chandra Mouli, leamed Senior Counsel,

¶32

appearing for Mr. Satya Sadhan Chalamala, lcamed counsel fbr thc petitioner, Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao, leamed Govemnrent pleader fbr Assignment

¶33

It is stated that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the Plot No.82 admeasuling 600 square yards in Surwey No.67 of Jubilee Enclave, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same vide registercd sale deed bearing document No.878 of 2020

¶34

2

¶35

dated 21.01.2020. It is statcd that petitioncr has obtained building permission vide proceedings dated 02.06.2020 and constr-ucted 1 stilt plus five uppcr floors in the subject pr-opcrly. On 05.12.2023, whcn petitioner filed application for changing the nature of building frorn resider.rtial to hostel use, r'espondent No.6 - thc Zonal Commissioner,, Serilingampally Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, rejccted the application of the petitioner stating that the subject property falls undcr the Urban Land Cciling Act 1976 (fol shorl 'ULC Act').

¶36

It is furlher stated that the vendor of the petitioner has filed application for rcgularization of the subject propefty under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 vide application No.F1 1455126251005 by rcmitting requisite amount vide D.D.No.478l9l datcd 23.09.2005 and Chattan No.70384 dated 05.10.2005 in favour of the Special Ofhcer and Cornpetent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. Aftcr conducting due cnquiry, the Govcmment has recommendcd for rcgularization of the subject propefty. Il.,is statcd tlrat vendor of the petitioner has addressed letter dated 06.07.2012 to the Governrnent seeking ULC clearancc, to which, the Government has issued memo dated 21.08.2012 directing the petitioner to subrlit No Objection Certihcate (NOC) frorn other legal heirs. Accordingly,

¶37

3

¶38

the vendor of the petitioner submitted legal heir certificate and NOC through letter dated 31.10.2014. The Governrnent issued a memo dated 1 1.12.2019 to the vendor of the petitioner stating that a detailed rep,olt was submitted to the Chief Cornmissioner of Land Adrrinistlation (CCLA) and further orders are awaited

¶39

Grievance of the petitioner is that despite the subject propcrty fonning part of approved layout of Hyderabad Metropolitan Developmcnt Authority (HMDA), and even after complying with all the requilernents in tenns of G.O. Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002, respondents have not issued any proceedings regularizing the subject propcdy and issued proceedings rejecting the change of nature of building from residential to hostel usc.

¶40

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 - thc Spccial Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Ranga Reddy District, respondenrs have not disputed submission of application by vendor of the petitioner for regularization of the subject properry as per the policy enutiated by the Govemment in G.O. Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 29.07.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UC.I) Deparlment dated 18.06.2008. They have also not disputed remittancc of regularization amount by the vendor of the petitioner. Except stating

¶41

4

¶42

that wlit petition is not maintainable, no reasons whatsoever are forthcon'ring for not passing orders and.withholding the application for regularization of subject propefty of the vendor of the petitioner all these vcars

¶43

Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the^judgment of this Courl in W.P. No.2l26 ot2023 dated22.02.2023 and submitted that this Court has directed the respondents therein to consider the 1n rcgularization application submitted by the appiicant therein respect of the lands in Suruey Nos.34, 35/Part, 36lPart,37, 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet Viilage, Serilrngampally Mandal, Ranga Rcddy District, and also placcd reliancc on thc judgment of this Court in W.P. No.42206 of 2017 datcd 06.06.2023, and submitted that in the lands forming part of sarne sulvey number i.e., 66 and 67 of Madhapur Village, Selilingarnpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, this Court has set aside noticcs issued under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act as nor-est, null and void and directed the reppondents thelein to refund the alriount of Rs.15,80,,095/- paid by the petitioner therein towards rcgulalization of land.

¶44

On a careful exarnination of the above judgments relied upon by the petitioner and its applicability to the lands in Survey Nos.66

¶45

5

¶46

f, c

¶47

and 67 and thc telief sought in this writ pctition is also relating to Survey No.67, this Courl is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the respondents are directed to pass orders in the regularization application submitted by vendor of tl.re petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than eight (8) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order

¶48

Learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that even though the petitioner and his vendor are entitled for refund of arnount dcpositcd in tcrms of Policy enunciated by the Government as per G.O Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC.l) Deparlment dated 29.07 .2002, as per the judgment dated 06.06.2023 of this Court in W.P. No.42206 of 2011 , they are restricting their clairn for passing orders in the regularization application submittcd by the vendor of thc petitioner

¶49

ln view of the above, this Courl deems it appropri'ate to dispose of thc writ petition directing respondent No.2 - the Chicl Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, to pass orders in the regularization application No.F I /45 5/2625 I 2005 submitted by the vendor of the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶50

r1

¶51

6

¶52

1 1 . With thc above observations, tl.re writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

There shall be no order as to costs

¶54

As a sequel thereto, rniscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶55

the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶56

To,

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR h'JxII-'

¶59

J^{vsecrtor'rOFFICER}

¶60

1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶61

2 The Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶62

) The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Cornmissioner, Greater Hyderabad tr/uniCipal Corloration, CC Complex, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶63