WP/34292/2022 of Thota Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023

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

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMAERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

WRIT PETITION NOS: 25069 OF 2021 AND 34292OF 2022

W.P.No.25069 OF 202'l

Between:

Thota Ashok, S/o. late Venkataiah, Aged about 47 [yearc, Occ. Agriclture, ][Rl/o. ][H.No.]4-78, Avunoor Village, Mustabad Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1The Government of Telangana, rep by its, Principal Secretary, PanchayathRaj and rural development, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Raj and rural development, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

TheDistrict Collector, Rajanna Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.

3. The Mandal Parishath Development officer, [Musthabad ][mandal, ][Rajanna]Sircilla District.Sircilla District.

4. The Avunoor Grampanchayath, Rep by its Secretary, [Avunoor ][Gram]panchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.panchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

5. Thota balaiah, S/o. late Venkataiah, Aged about 50 [years, Occ. ][Agriclture,]RL/o, H.No. 6-48, Avunoor Village, Musthabad Mandal,Rajanna [Sircilla ][District.]RL/o, H.No. 6-48, Avunoor Village, Musthabad Mandal,Rajanna [Sircilla ][District.]

...RESPONDENTS

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more [particularly ]one [in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the [action ][of ][the ][4th ][respondent ][in]issuing cancellation of building [p€rmeation ]vide Proceeding [No.]GP/AVNFyB.P.28|2O2O, dated 29.09.2021 , for [in ][permitting ][the ][petitioner ][to]construction [proceeding ]no. GP/AVNR [lB.P.28l2O2, ][dated ]['19.12.2020, ][on ][the]

ground that the sth respondent made complaint against petitioner alleging that Iam constructing house by encroaching his property, as illegal arbitrary withoutjurisdiction, contrary to the provision of relangana panchayth Raj Act-201g, andam constructing house by encroaching his property, as illegal arbitrary withoutjurisdiction, contrary to the provision of relangana panchayth Raj Act-201g, andviolative of Article 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia, and consequenfly setaside the 4threspondent Proceeding No. GP/AVNFyB.p .2BI2O2O, dated29.09.2021 .aside the 4threspondent Proceeding No. GP/AVNFyB.p .2BI2O2O, dated29.09.2021 .

lA NO:'1 OF 2022

Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased toreceive the documents filed along with this petition as additional documents onbehalf of the writ petitioner to prove the case of the petitioner and the illegalactions of the 4th and Sth Respondents.

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under section ['151 ]cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased toSuspend the impugnedproceedings No. cP/AVNRyB.p.2B|2O2O, dated29.09.2021 .

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased todirect the 4th respondent not to demolish the construction/basement in respect ofHouse No.4-78 Avunoor Village, Mustabad Mandal Rajanna sricilla District,constructed by virtue of Permission proceedings No Gp/AVNR/B. p2gl2o2o daled19t12t2020.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt T.SURYA SATTSH for SRI ERIGI GANESH

counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ RURAL DEvCounsel for the Respondents No.5 : -- W.P.NO:34[2920F ][2022]

Between:

Thota Balaiah, S/o [Late Venkataiah, Aged ][about ][50 ][yery9, ggcj^4griculture, ][Rl/o 6-].is, AilfiiVillige, Mustabad Mandal,Rajanna-Sircilla [District-S08284']

...PETITIONER

AND

l.ThestateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretary,.PanchayatRajand'' niiaiOtvetopment "Departm6nt Secreta riat Buildings, HyderabadniiaiOtvetopment "Departm6nt Secreta riat Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, [Rajanna-Sircilla ][District at ][Sircilla']

3. The Mandal [Parishad ][Development ][officer, ][Mustabad Mandal, ][Rajanna-]Sircilla District.Sircilla District.

4. AvunoorGrampanchayat,Rep.byitsSecretary,AvunoorVillage,Mustabadt\i1andal, Rajanna-Sircilla [District.]t\i1andal, Rajanna-Sircilla [District.]

5. - Thota Ashok, nyo -H.f..fo.+-78, S/o Aurnoo1. [Late ][Venkataiah, ]Village, Mustabad [Aged ][about ][Mandal, ][47 ][Rajanna-Sircilla ][years, ][Occ' ]{Ori99llu.re'[District]505404.505404.

...RESPONDENTS

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, [order ][or ][Direction ][more ][particularly ][one in ][the ][nature ][of ][writ ][of]Mandamus declaring [the ][action ][of the ][Respondent ][No.4 ][in ][permitting ][the ][illegal]construction activity of [the ][Respondents ][No.s ][in ][an ][extent ][of ][293 ][sq.yards ][at]H.No.4-78 [(old ]H.No.5-57) [and ][H.No.4-79 ][(Old ][H.No.5-57i1), situated ][at ][Avunoor]Mustabad [Mandal, ][Rajanna-Sircilla ][District, despite ][cancellation ][of ][the]Village, construction [Permission ][No.GP/AVNR/B ][.P.28t2020, dated ][291o912021 ][and ][also]the Representation, [dated ][o3to8t2o22 submitted ][by ][the ][petitioner ][to ][restrain ][the]No.S [from ][making ][such ][illegal construction, being illegal, arbitrary, ][and]Respondent violative of Articles [14, ][21 ][and ][300-4 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][apart ][from ][being]violative of [principles ][of ][natural ][justice ][consequently direct ][the ][Respondent ][No-S]not raise any construction [in the ][aforesaid property with ][a ][further direction ][to ][the]Respondents [No.2 ][to 4 to ensure the ][same.]

fA NO: 'f OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to directthe Respondent No.4 to ensure that no construction activity to carry on by theRespondent No.S or any third parties on his behalf in an extent of 293 sq.yards atH.No.4-78 (Old H.No.5-57) and H.No.4-79 [(Old ]H.No.S- 57/4 situated at AvunoorVillage, Mustabad Mandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.PAPAIAH for SRI SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV--Counsel for the Respondents No.S :

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR R"EDDYWRIT PETITION Nos.25O69 of 2O2l and.34292 of 2022COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.25069 of 2O2l is ltled seeking the followingrelief:

2. relief:

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction moreparticularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of respondent No.4in issuingcancellation of building permeation vide ProceedingNo.GP/AVNR/8.P. 28/2O2O, dated 29.O9.2021 {or inpermitting the petitioner to construction proceedingno GP/AVNR /8.P.28/2O2, dated 19.12.2O2O on theground that respondent No.5 made complaint againstPetitioner alleging that he is constructing house byencroaching his property as illegal, arbitrary, withoutjurisdiction, contrary to the provision of TelangalaPanchayth Raj Act, 2O18 and violative of Articles 14and 300A of the Constitution of India..."

W.P.No.34292 of 2022 is filed seeking the following "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction [more ][particularly]one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring [the]action of Respondent No.4 in [permitting ]the [illegal]construction activity of Respondent No.5 in [an ][extent]of 293 sq yards at H.No.4-78 [(Old ]H.No.5-57i andH.No.4-79 (Old H.No.S 57/ 1) situated at Avunoor CVI]R. JWp 250(19 2O2I and 34292 2022

Village, Mustabad Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla Districtdespite cancellation of the Construction PermissionNo.GP/AVNR/ 8.P.28 I 2O2O, dated 29 / 09 / 2O2l andalso the Representation, dated 03/OA/2022submitted by the petitioner to restrain RespondentNo.S from making such illegal construction beingillegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 2l and,3O0A of the Constitution of India apart from beingviolative of principles of natural justice..."

3. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.25069 of 2021 isrespondent No.5 in W.P.No.34292 of 2022 and petitioner inW.P.No.34292 of 2022 is respondent No.5 in W.P.No.25O69of 2O2l and the issue involved in both the writ petitions isone arrd the same, the same are being disposed of by thiscommon order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter bereferred to as arrayed in W.P.No.25O69 of 2021.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.5-57 situated atAvunoor Village, Mustabad Mandal, Rajanna SircillaDistrict. It is the further case of the petitioner that as thehouse purchased by him is in dilapidated condition, he hasmade an application for construction of a new house beforeDistrict. It is the further case of the petitioner that as thehouse purchased by him is in dilapidated condition, he hasmade an application for construction of a new house before CVBR. Jwp_25069_202 I a\d J4292 J022

respondent No.4 uide application, dated 05. 12.2O2O. Aflerexamination of the required documents and after collectingnecessary fee, respondent No.4 has granted buildingpermission uide Permit No.GP/AVNR/8.P.28/2O2, dated19 .12.2O2O . It is the further case of the petitioner thatafter obtaining necessary permission, while he isproceeding with the construction, respondent No.5 hassubmitted a complaint stating that he is proceeding withthe construction contrary to the naksha which is enclosedIN support of the building permission and requestedrespondent No.4 to revoke the building permission [granted]to the petitioner.

6. It is stated in W.P.No.34292 of 2022 that suppressingthe facts and ground realities, the petitioner had obtainedpermission and in fact, he is not proceeding with theconstruction in accordance with the sanctioned plan ornaksha enclosed in support of the building [permission.]Respondent No.S has submitted a representation [before]respondent No.4 for revocation of the building [permission]granted to the petitioner. It is further stated that acting onthe said representation, respondent No.4 had issued \

cvull...lWp 250(19 20)l and 31292 2022

notices to the petitioner uide notices dated 31,.03.202 1,30.06.2021 arl.d 29.07.2021 and assailing the same, thepetitioner filed W.P.No.2O922 of 2O2l and pendingadjudication of the said writ petition, respondent No.4 haspassed the impugned order revoking the buildingpermission granted to the petitioner.

7. Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, has strenuously contended that the impugnedorder passed by respondent No.4 revoking the buildingpermission granted to the petitioner, dated 19.12.2020amounts to non-application of mind and in violation of theprinciples of natural justice. It is further submitted thatmere pendency of the civil suit cannot ipso facto act as aprohibition on the statutory powers exercised by theauthorities and taking into consideration of the fact ofpendency of the suit revoking the building permissionamounts to illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel furthercontended that there is no material to come to a conclusionthat the petitioner1S proceeding with the constructioncontrary to the plan/naksha enclosed with the buildingpermission. In fact, the respondent authorities never CVBR, Jwp 25069 2O2l afi J4292J022

conducted physical inspection of the subject property norhave identified or localised that the subject property is in adifferent place nor the place shown in the sanctioned plan.Learned counsel further argued that the respondentauthorities have referred wrong case number asW.P.No.20922O of 2O2I instead of referring W.P.No.2O922of 2O2l without even verifying of the records relating to thesaid case and passed the impugned order.

8. Mr.P.Papaiah, learned counsel representing SriSricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for respondent No.S,has vehemently contended that since the petitioner has notsubmitted any explanation to the notices dated3L.O3.2O2I, 30.06.2021 and 29.O7.2O21, it is deemed thatthe petitioner is proceeding with the illegal constructionand therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from anyillegal infirmities warranting interference of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. On careful examination of the impugned order, dated29.09.2021, the revocation orders [have ][been passed ]onlyon the ground of pendency of [O.S.No.222 ]of 2OI9 [and]

CVBI{. JWp 25069 2O2l ar(l34)9) 2022

respondent No.4 has not informed the said fact. It isstated that mere [pendency ]of the suit does not take awaythe rights of either of the parties unless there is aprohibitory order. There is no finding in the impugnedorder that there are any prohibitory orders restraining therespondent authorities from granting building permission.In the absence of such findings being recorded in theimpugned order, respondent No.4 is not having any poweror authority to enlarge the scope of the impugned order byway of counter affidavit.

10. In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the inter se disputes betweenthe parties and pendency of the suit proceedings, deems itappropriate to relegate the matter to respondent No.4 forre-examination of granting of building permission dulytaking into consideration the representations submitted bythe petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law. If the alleged representation said to have beensubmitted by the petitioner is not on record, the petitioneris permitted to make a fresh representation within a periodof two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this I

CVBR. J

Wp 25069 2021 and 14292 2022

order. In such event, respondent No.4 is directed toexamine the same duly taking note of the orders passed bythis Court in W.A.No.563 of 2022 and pass appropriateorders in accordance with law

11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.No costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed.

SDIV. HARI PRASADASSISTANTF€TlsrRARSECTI&OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1 . The Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and rural development, Department,Government of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Government of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. TheDistrict Collector, Rajanna Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.3. The Mandal Parishath Development officer, Musthabad mandal, RajannaSircilla District.3. The Mandal Parishath Development officer, Musthabad mandal, RajannaSircilla District.

4. The Secretary, Avunoor Gram panchayath, Musthabad Mandal, AvunoorGrampanchayath, Rajanna Sircilla District.Grampanchayath, Rajanna Sircilla District.

5. One CC to SRI T.SURYA SATISH, Ardvocate. [OPUC]

[OPUC]6. One CC to SRI SRICHARAN TELAPROLU, Advocate. [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for theState of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU[State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OU[

8. Two CD Copies.BSKBSK

\{d\

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

COMMON ORDER

1[t\e][ S][T][A][T][E]fr t\\12$1[I],!)oo2[.{{.DELttt'lc WP.No.25069 of 2021 AND 34292 OF 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONSWITHOUT COSTS