Ellandula Praneeth Kumar Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6643 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ellandula Praneeth Kumar, S/o. tvlogili, Aged 25 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 13-61, Huzurabad, Huzurabad lvlandal, Karimnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner, Nagara Panchayat, Huzurabad, Huzurabad lvlandal, Karimnagar District.

¶13

3 Aitha Dhanalakshmi, Wo. Aitha Ravindar, Aged 44 years, Rl/o. H.No. 12-36, Huzurabad Village and [t/landal, Karimnagar District.

¶14

4 Aitha Ravindar, S/o. Achaiah, Aged 53 years, Rl/o. H.No. 12-36, Huzurabad Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [t4andamus declaring the impugned proceedings No. G1l4lCCl2O14, dt.26.02.2015 issued by the respondent No.2 for revocation of building permission granted in favour of the^petitioner vide^proceedings No. 4412013-14, dt. 07.12.2014 without any competent orders for title pending civil suit i.e. l.A.No. 18 of 2015 in O.S.No. 5 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, having injunction order in favour of the petitioners property to an extent o'f 241 .11 sq.yds or 201.56 sq.mtrs., in Sy.No. 236718, situated at Huzurabad village and f\Iandal, Karimnagar District is illegal, arbitrary, against to the^principles of natural^justice and set aside the same.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 8843 0F 2015)

¶18

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the c,i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings No. G1l4lCCl2014, dt. 2(.t)2.2915 issued by the respondent No.2 pertaining to the revocation of pe' rission granted in proceedings No. 4412013-14, dt.07.12.2014 for constructio of the building in the petitioner's property to an extent of 241 .11 sq.yds or lrl1.56 sq.mtrs., in Sy.No. 2367/B, situated at Huzurabad village and Mandal, I arimnagar District, as per the plan, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.BUCHI BABU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & lJ IBAN DEV

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REt Dy, SC FOR MCPL

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI R.K.SURI

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.6643 oF 2015

¶27

DATED: 29.L2.2O25

¶28

Betwee n:

¶29

Dllandula Praneeth Kumar.

¶30

... Petitioner

¶31

AND

¶32

The State of Telangana,

¶33

Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat,

¶34

Hyderabad and 3 others.

¶35

... Respondents

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:

¶38

". . .to declare the impugned proceedings No.Gl/ 4/ CC/ 2014, dated 26.02.2015 issued bg the respondent No.2 for reuocation of building pennission granted. in fauour of the petitioner uide proceedings No.44/2O13 14, dated 07.12.2014 tuithout ana competent orders for title pending ciuil suit i.e. I.A.No. 18 of 2O15 in O.S- .Mo.S of 2O15 on the Jile of Juntor Ctuil Judge, Huzurabod, Kaimnagar District, hauing injunction order in fauour of the petitioner's property to an ertent of 241.11 sq. yards or 201.56 sq. meters, in Sg. No.2367/ B, situated at Huzurabad uillage and Mandal, Kaimnagar Distncr is illegal, arbitrary, agoinst to the pinciples of naturaL justice and set aside the same and to pass..."

¶39

\ - ,,1^r.'i \l

¶40

2

¶41

Heard Sri K.Buchi Babu, learned cc unsel for the petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned S t rnding Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and Sri R.K.Suri, learr ed counsel for respondent No.3 and 4.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner u,orr cl submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor rt the open plot admeasuring 241.11 Sq. Yards in Survey No.23t>^z/8, situated at Huzurabad Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District (herein after 'subject property') and the salne was acrl rlred by way of Gift Settlement Deed uide Docurnent No.2li \7 l2Ol3 dated 13.06.20 13 from his mother. Subsequer tly, petitioner approached respondent No.2 seeking p e rmission for construction and permission was accorded ,r cle Proceedings No.B.A.No.44 l2Ol3 14 dated 07.I2.2OI4. Hon,:,rer, respondent No.3 is interfering u,ith the construction, as suc r the petitioner has filed O.S. No.05 of 20 15 on the frle of Ju- or Civil Judge, Huzurabad and also filed an application utdel..\ No.18 of 2015 for injunction and the same was granted by tht: trial Court ulde order dated 23.O l.2Ol5.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner uroulc. Iurther submit that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are claiming to be^,r vners of land to

¶44

_---r

¶45

J

¶46

an extent of 266 Sq. Yards in Survey No.2353/A&B under Gift Settlement Deed and made an application for construction and the same was sanctioned by respondent No.2 uid_e proceedings No.96/2014- 15 dated 23.12.2074: that petitioner submitted his objection on 12.01.2O15 and thereafter respondent No.2 issued show cause notrce uide No.G1/ /CC l2ol4 dated 20.01.2015 to petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 27.O1.2015. However, without considering the same respondent No.2 passed impugned order uide proceedings No.G1/4/CC /2014 dated 26.O2.2O15, revoking permissions gralted to petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 and further directed them to approach appropriate forum to settle ownership title over the subject property.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 filed O.S. No. Ol of 2014 against the petitioner and others on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, and the petitioner herein filed an application utdeI.A. No. 159 of 2019 in O.S. No. Ol of 2Ol4 against the respondents, and the same was allow,ed on 22.07.2019 and temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and others from alienating the suit schedule property, in any manner, till the disposal of

L*-\

Fr,'

4

the suit and further the Commissioner, Na5 ara Panchayat, Huzurabad was directed to maintain status-ql- , till disposal of the case and not to change the records in anv narner and not to issue any construction permission or any or( er in respect of suit land till disposal of the suit. He would furt rer submit that while respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have allegerl 1 created false documents, i.e., Gift Deeds, the petitioner acqr-r red the subject an property under registered Gift Deeds and "'eLs granted injunction in his favour uide O.S. No. 5 of 20 I !i on the file of Junior Civit Judge, Huzurabad. However, ri s;pondent No.2 without considering the factual aspects h: s revoked the permission adverselv. Therefore, the impugrL, rl order dated 26.O2.2O15 to petitioner property and responc ent Nos.3 to 4 property are differen t and unsustainable an<l the sarne was liable to be set aside.

¶52

Per Contra, learned counsel for respond: rt Nos.3 and 4 would submit that respondent No.4 Ir r:chased land admeasuring 0.22 guntas under three differenl sale deeds i.e., Sale Deed No.3579/2005 dated 22.IO.2OOS tr an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas (968 Sq. Yards) in Survey No, 1)53/A&R, Sale Deed No.3452l2OOS dated 23.01.2005 to an c; :tent of Ac.0.O7 guntas (8a7 Sq. Yards) in Survey No.2353/A&.- and Sale Deed

&7

5

i.!

No.2226 l2OO5 dated^17.06.2OO5 to an extent of Ac.O.O7 guntas (8a7 Sq. Yards) in Survey No.2353/A&B and respondent No.4 has been in^possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase and mutation proceedings were also issued vide Proceeding No.Bla67B/2005 dated 01.10.2005 by Tahsildar, Huzurabad Mandal in respect of land admeasuring 1694 Sq. Yards in Survey No.2353/A&B and another Proceeding No.B/467812OO5 dated 24.02.2006 in respect of land admeasuring 484 Sq. Yards in Survey No.2353/A and land admeasuring 484 Sq. Yards in Survey No.2353/B. He further submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 h,ave obtained permission for construction of compound wall uide Proceeding No.A3 129a12005 dated^02.O3.2006 issued by Nagar Panchayat, Huzurabad and the^same was^renewed from 2006 to 2010 and respondent No.4 has sold an extent of 190 Sq. Yards in the year 2OO7 and 570 Sq. Yards in the year 2009, retaining extent of 1268 Sq. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has executed gift deed No.315/2015 dated 16.0i.2015 to an extent of 266.66 Sq. Yards in his son's favour and another gift deed No.389 1/2014 dated ll.lO.2OI4 to an extent of 266.66 Sq. Yards in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 has obtained permission for construction of building uide Roc.

¶57

\ i: <..$,i I

¶58

6

¶59

No.343/ML/2016^{dated 12'O5'2016 in favourc} I his son^{to an} extent of^{266-66 Sq. Yards arrd another buildinli} prermission^uide in favour^of Proceedings^{No.96/2014dated 23'12'2O14} ;. respondent^{No.3 to an extent of 266'66Sq' Yarrl}

¶60

7 . karned^{counselfor respondent Nos'3 ax'l} .1 u,ould further submit that^{aggrievedby the impugned order cL;} .1-ed 26.O2.2O15, respondent^{No.4 hled W'P No'9957 of 2Ol5 att} I this Court^uide order dated^{ll.O4.2016, set aside the proceedi} rgs revoking^the permission^{to the respondent No'3' He furt:} er submits^that petitioner herein^{has filed W'P' No'37780 of 2()} t5 and the^same was dismissed^{by this Court uide orderdatec} 20.11.2015.^He further submits^{that respondent No'4 filed FII} No.152 of²⁰¹⁶ dated 06.05.20^{16 against the petitioner and1r} :t-itioner frled^FIR rd Police^Station No.123 of^{2016 on the file of SHO' Huzurall} against^{RespondentNo 4 and thesalr} €, afe^pending investigation.^{In view of the pendency of crimir} aLl case as^{well as} suits in o.S.^{No.S of 2015 filed by the petitiott} :r: and O.S.^No.O1 of 2014,^{the presentwrit petition is misconce i} red and the^same is liable^{to be dismissed'}

¶61

Learned Standing^{Counsel for respor.t lent No'2 would} submit that^{petitioner applied for permissic I t for construction}

¶62

7

¶63

basing on gift deed No.2387 of 2Ol3 dated 13.06.20 13 and respondent No.4 filed objection on 07.01.2014 stating that land covered within the boundaries in the alleged gift deed of the petitioner is not situated in Survey No.2367 lB, but it is falling in Survey No.2353/A&B which belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4. In view of the objection raised by respondent No.2 addressed a letter uide letter No.TP/04 l2014 dated 03.04.2014 to rhe Tahsildar, Huzurabad Mandal to verify the location of the lald belonging to petitioner and Tahsildar uide his letter No.B / 189 / 20 I 4 dated 30 .06 .2O 14 submitted a report along with sketch map stating that the land shown in gift deed of writ petitioner is not in Survey No.236Z lB, but it is in Survey No.2353/A&B u,hich belongs to respondent Nos.3 and 4. He would further submit that there was change in officer and the new officer without verifying earlier rejection proceedings has granted permission lor construction dated OZ.12.2Ol4. The respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 20.01.2015 to the writ petitioner asking to produce documentary evidence and petitioner gave reply dated 27.0i.2015, and after verifying the documents placed before respondent No.2 the permission granted to the petitioner on 07.l2.2ol4 was cancell ed, uid"e

¶64

tr, -^-'--t1

¶65

8

¶66

Proceedings No.Gl/4/CC /2014 dated 26.O2.2O15i and therefore, prayed to dismiss the present n,rit petition.

¶67

Consideration:

¶68

On perusal of material placed on record, i is evident that petitioner is ciaiming land in Survey No.2:l^'//8, which is registered under gift deed and whereas res: rndent No.3 is claiming land in Survey No.2353/A&8, ur cler gift deed. Pursuant to permission granted by respor, l{lnt No.2, the petitioner 1S trying to raise structures in lar cl belonging to respondent No.3, and the contention of res: tndent No.3 is supported by report submitted by Tahsildar, HrL ;urabad Mandal uide letter No.BllB9 12014 dated 30.06.201.1 wherein it is specifically observed that land showing in gift rt red of petitioner is in Sy No. 2367lA&8, but it not in Survel'Nr:1353/A&B and therefore, Respondent No.2 calcelled the p,ermission for construction gralted on 07.12.2Ol4 in favour ,r^' petitioner uide Proceedings No.G1/a/CC /2074 dated 26.O2.2'.t )15 as well as permission dated 23.l2.2ol4 gralted in favorr of respondent No.3

¶69

9

¶70

I I

¶71

Aggrieved by the proceedings daLed 26.02.2015 respondent No.3 filed W.P. No.9957 of 2Ol5 and the same was allowed and proceedings dated 26.O2.2O15 revoking the permission of respondent No.3 was set aside by this Court uide Order dated ll.04.2016. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed O.S. No.01^of 2Ol4 on the file of learned Senior Civii Judge for declaration^of title as well as perpetual injunction, a-long with an application uide l.A. No. 159 of 2O 19 for interim injunction and the said application was allowed by the trial Court uide Order dated 22.07.2019 and temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and others from alienating the suit schedule property, in any manner, till the disposal of the suit and further the Commissioner, Nagara Panchayat, Huzurabad was directed to maintain status-quo till disposal of the case and not to change the records in any manner and not to issue any construction permission or any order in respect of suit land till disposal of the suit.

¶72

Conclusion:

¶73

In view of the Order passed in LA. No.159 of 20 19 dated 22.07.2019, no further orders required to be passed and this writ petition 1S closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to

d

l0

_,.'I

\

approach municipal authorities after disposal^cf llending^{suit in}

¶79

\