N. Sreevani Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17769 OF 2016

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

N. Sreevani, W/o Venkta Viswa Prasad, Aged about 37 years, Occ; Housewife, Rl/o H.No. 7 -8-22214, New Goutham Nagar, Ferozguda, Tirumalgiri. Hyderabad.

¶9

-....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary ltlunicipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Greater Warangal ft4unicipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶13

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman, KUDA Office, Hanamkonda, Waranqal District.

¶14

..,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents particularly Respondent No.2 in not according permission for construction within the statutory period and referring the same to the 3rd respondent for sanction of the layout regardless of the time specified having expired by antedating the rejection Memo is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents to accord permission for construction of compound wall and one room within 200Sq.Yds., out of Sy.No.139 to 142, situated at Lashkar Singaram revenue Village of Hanamkonda lVlandal, Warangal District.

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF 2016^{(WPMP.NO:21845} OF 2016)

¶17

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 respondents not to interfere with the construction being undertaken by the petitioner of the compound wall and one room within 200Sq.Yds., out of Sy.Nc.139 to 142, situated at Lashkar Singaram revenue Village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.A.R.SESHAGIRI RAO

¶19

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

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PASHAM MOHITH REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MIRZA SAIFULLA BAIG

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.17769 of2OL6

DATED: 15.12"2025

Between:

N. Sreevani

...Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretarl', Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.

¶32

,.Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is {iled to dcclare the inaction of respondent No.2 in not according permission for construclion within the statutory period and referring the same to respondent No.3 for sanction of layout by antedated rejection memo as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief.

¶35

Heard Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pasham Mohith Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶36

\

¶37

LNA,J l|t.P No. I 7769 of 2016 ')

¶38

Learned Counsel lor the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of open land admeasuring 200 Sq._vrds in S1'.No.139 to 142, situated at Lashkar Singaram revenue village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject landJ, having purchased the same under registered document No.5562 of 2O15, dated 26.O8.2015; that his vendor purchased an extent of 455 Sq.yrds under registered document No.432 i of 2009, dated 13.07.2009 and out of which, he alicnated an extent of 24O Sq.yrds to one Bairi Yadava Reddy, under regisrered documenr No.96O4 of 2O11, dated 21 .12.2011 and the balance extent is sold to the petitioner; that Bairi Yadava Reddy, obtained permission for construction of residential building uide permir No.98 in file No.BAl473l2O11-12, dated 13.02.2012 and completed construction and the same was also assigned H.No.S-1138i A.

¶39

Learned Counsel lor the petitioner further submitted that one Nayeni Rajender Reddy, raised objection that Bairi Yadava Reddy, has undertaken construction in the area earmarked for park belonging to Jagruti Colony, Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda and the said Bairi Yaclava Reddy, filed a writ petition uide W.P.No.9 628 of 2Oll. Sefore this Court and this Court uide Order dated 26.04-2012,

¶40

LNA,J W.P.No.l7769 of 2016

¶41

3

¶42

directed the respondent No.2 to demarcate the subject iand by a competent ofhcer, so as to identiiy whether the land of petitioner's therein falls outsidc the Jagruti Colony or '"','ithin the Jagruti Colony; that pursuant to above orders, respondent No.2 issued proceedings No.GS/GP/CPll5o38l2ol2, dated 23.08.2012 and held that the land belongs to Bairi Yadava Reddy, falls outside the Jagruti Colony.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pctitioner fiied an application dated 27.1 1.20 15, bcfore respondent No.2, seeking permission for construction of a compound rvall and one room in the subject land, however, respondent No.2 neither accorded permission nor refused the same within stipulated period as specilied under HMC Act; that on 29 .04.2016 a memo dated 30.01.2016 in Roc.No.G 1 /3853212015, was served on father of the petitioner rejecting the permission on the ground that subject Iand was not within the approved layout and therefore, the petitioner shall submit an application for LRS before respondent No.3. Accordingly, petitioner submitted an application for LRS, however, the same was not acknowledged by respondents. He further submitted that as per C.O.Ms.No.33 dated Ol.O2.2016 (MA & UD) Departmenl, Government has reviewed the Layout Regularization Scheme and extended the time limit for submission of application till 01 .03.20^16;

-,

'h

ll

I ! I I

LNA,J W. P.No. 17769 of 2016

¶49

4

¶50

that respondent No.2 deliberately rejected the petitioner's application for permission by antedating it as 30.O1.2016, whereas, the same was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2016, in the meanwhile, the scheme expired on 01.O3.2016. He further submitted that respondents cannot refuse permission for construction having given permission to adjaccnt land owner, who is also similarly placed. Aggrieved br-the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶51

Learned Counscl for the petitioner further submitted that subsequent to hling of the writ petition, the subject land has been regularized by respondent No.3 uide proceedings No.KUDALO26O2Ol2OI5-17, dated 28.O4.2018, therefore, the principal objcction, on which, the application liled by the petitioner seeking permission for construction was rejected, does no! hold good. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner completed construction of compound wall and a small room under deemed clause, since the respondent No.2 did not pass any order within the stipulated period.

¶52

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not dispulc the fact thar the subject land has been regulAr ized, by respondent No.3 under LRS Scheme.

¶53

ra

¶54

e-1

¶55

LNA,J W.P.No.l7769 of 2016

¶56

5

¶57

I t

¶58

B. Perusal of the record discloses that respondent No.2 had accorded permission for construction to Bairi Yadava Reddy, who is the owner of adjacent open land, whereas, the application submitted by the petitioner was kept pending and the same was rejected uide proceedings dated 30.0i.2016, however, the same was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2016, which is specifically mentioned on the rejection memo dated 30.O1.2016, by the father of the petitioner. The principal contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that LRS scheme was expired on 01.O3.2016, whereas, rejection memo was antedated as 30.01.2016 and the same was served on the petitioner on 29.04.2016. He, further submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permisslon for construction was rejected on the ground thal the subject land is not part of an approved layout and therefore, the same has to be regularized. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the subject land has been regularized by respondent No.3 on 28.04.2018 and the principal objection on which the application for construction of building was rejectcd, has been complied with and therefore, the application deserves to be considered.

¶59

I

¶60

9 . In the light of above^'facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directecl to consider

¶61

LNA.J W.P.No.l7769 of 2016

¶62

6

¶63

the application for permission submitted by the petitioner for construction without insisting for LRS and pass orders within a period of four (04) u,eeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶64

Miscellancous pctitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶65

SD/- C. DEEPIKA

¶66

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To

¶69