WP/42818/2015 of Smt Kanneganti Krishna Nagendramma D/o K.Bujjaiah, Vs The State of Telangana rep by on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.42818 of 2015

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the 3rdrespondent in issuing the notice dated 28-11-2015 to thepredecessor in title, inspite of application for regularisationunder Building Penalisation Scheme is pending since 2008 asillegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to article 14 of theConstitution of India and set aside the notice dated 28-11-2015issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct therespondents to regularise the pent house Building of thepetitioner H.No.13-143/1, Plot No.15(G+2 Floors and PentHouse)Plot No.15, Bibisaheb Maqtha Village,PeerzadigudaGrampanchyayat,Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,under Building penalisation scheme as per the applicationdated 28-06-2008 without insisting for fresh applicationtherefor and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’bleCourt may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.”

(Reproduced Verbatim)

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writpetitioner, the learned standing counsel for HMDA representing the 2[nd]respondent, and the learned standing counsel for the 3[rd] respondent-Grampanchayat. I have perused the material record.

The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is this: “She hadpurchased the subject house property under a registered Sale Deeddated 07.03.2011. She had made an application on 28.06.2008 underthe Building Penalization Scheme. She had paid the required fee in asum of Rs.37,114/- to the 2[nd] respondent vide demand draft dated31.12.2012 and made a further representation on 11.01.2013reminding the Officer of the 2[nd] respondent that the said application ispending since 2008. Thus, she is entitled to the benefits of the earlierBuilding Regularization Scheme that was in vogue at the time of herapplication. While so, the 3[rd] respondent-Panchayat had issued the impugned notice dated 28.11.2015 requiring her to once again applyfor regularization in terms of G.O.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. Feelingaggrieved, the writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner.’ The learnedcounsel for the petitioner, made submissions in line with the casepleaded in the writ petition.

The learned standing counsel for the 2[nd] respondent wouldsubmit that the earlier application was submitted by the petitioner wayback in the year 2008 and that a reminder was issued by her in theyear 2013 and that the necessary fee was paid in December 2012,according to the submissions of the writ petitioner and that in view ofthe lapse of time and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,if the petitioner submits a comprehensive representation stating all thefacts, that would enable the 2[nd] respondent to take an appropriatedecision in the matter in regard to the entitlement to the regularizationof her building under the Building Penalization Scheme.

The learned standing counsel for the 3[rd] respondent endorsesthe said submission.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that ifa direction as sought for by the learned standing counsel is given, theends of justice would be met. He further requests that a furtherobservation be made that the petitioner’s application of the year 2008be considered in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Conclusion

Recording the submissions, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representationafresh to the 2[nd] respondent with all the necessary facts andchronology of events to enable the 2[nd] respondent to consider anddispose of in strict accordance with the procedure established by lawthe original application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2008 asper the then existing Scheme. It is made clear that the writ petitionershall submit the application afresh as now directed, within four (4)

weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order; and onreceipt of such application, the 2[nd] respondent shall dispose of thesame, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight (8) weeksthereafter. The respondents shall not take any coercive actionincluding demolition of the subject property of the petitioner, until thedisposal of the application of the petitioner as directed in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thewrit petition shall stand dismissed.

______________________

M.Seetharama Murti, J

31[st] December, 2015cbs

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

cbs

WRIT PETITION No.42818 of 2015

31[st] December, 2015