Telangana High Court
WP/46441/2022 of Sri G. Murali Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 29 December 2022
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA.KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 46441 OF 2022 Behveen: l. Sri G. Murali, S/o. Lt. G. Chandraiah, Occ-
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOPRESENTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA.KANNEGANTIWRIT PETITION NO: 46441 OF 2022
Behveen:
l. Sri G. Murali, S/o. Lt. G. Chandraiah, Occ- Business, R/o. Flat No.l 12, HabitatMaruthi Heights, H. No.23-79, Krishnaveninagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.Maruthi Heights, H. No.23-79, Krishnaveninagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
2. Srnt. G. Rajya Laxmi, Wo. Sri G. Murali, Occ- House Wife, R/o. Flat No.1l2,Habitat Maruthi Heights, H. No.23-79, Krishna.;eninagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.Habitat Maruthi Heights, H. No.23-79, Krishna.;eninagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
3. Sri B. Veera Reddy, S/o. Lt. Raji Reddy, Occ- Business, N o.1-7-679, Ramnagar,HyderabadHyderabad
...PETTTTONER(S)
ANT)
l. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpcration, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund,HyderabadHyderabad
2. The Zonal Commissioner, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad District.
3. The City Planner, Secunderabad Zone, I{yderabad District.
4. The Asst. City Planner, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition undfr Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a rvrit, order or direction more particularly one in thc nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing Ex P-l rejection letter dated02.12.2022 in respect of building permission application bearing file no.007 829/GHMC I 3 862 I SECZ 12022-BP dated 22.01 .2022 as i llegal, arbi trary and contraryto the provisions of the GHMC Act and the order passed in W.P. No.36365 of 2022dated 17.11.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents hereinto grant building pegmission to me in respect of Plot No. NA, H.No. 1-7-690, 1-7-691/A,l-7-690 and 1-7-691, Survey No. 180, TS. No.l6 situated at 182693 as prayed inbuilding permission application bearing file no.007329/CHMC/386215EC212022-BPdated22.07.2022 as directed in W.P. no.36365 of 2022 C.::-ed 17.11.2022, lA NO: 1 OF2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in tlle circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, tlie High Court may be pleased to direct therespondents to grant building permission in respect of Plot No. NA, H.No. l-7-690, 1-7- 69llA, l-7-690 and I 7-691 , Sun'e,,hio. 180, TS. No.l5 si uated at 182693 as prayedin building permissic,n applir ation b:aring fi[e no.007829/G ['lMC/3862/SEC2/2022-BP]dated 22.07.2022 as t irecter in W.P. No.36365 of 2022 rated 17.11.2022, pendingdisposal ofthe above u rit pet tion Counsel for the Petitiorr e r(s):liRI. KATIGIIAR ANIL KUMA R
Counsel for the Respor dents: SRI. K R,\VINDER REDDY, I C
The Court made the lb lowinl : ORI)liR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
W.P.No.4644'l ot 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is with the following prayer; 'to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein inissuing Ex P-1 rejection letter dated 02-12-2022 in respect of buildingpermission application bearing File No.007829/GHMC/386215EC212O22-BPdaled 22-07-2022 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of theGHMC Act and the order passed in W.P.No.36365 of 2022dated 17-11-2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct therespondents herein to grant building permission to petilioner in respect ofPlot No.NA, H No.1-7-690, 1-7-69'llA, 1-7-690 and 1-7-691, Survey No.180TS No.16, situated at ['182693 ]as [prayed ]in building permission applicationbearing File No.007829/GHMC/386215EC212022-BP dated 22-07 -2022 asdirected in W. P.No.36365 of 2022 dated 17-'11-2022".
2.
2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Anil Kumar andMr. K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondentNos.1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel on either side submit that the issue in this WritPetition is squarely covered by the order dated 13.12.2021 in WritPetition No.20398 ot 2021 and batch, wherein this Court consideredthe issue at length and at paras 12 and 13 directed as under:
"12. ln view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that in order tojustify the action taken by the respondent authorities in revoking thebuilding permission of the petitioners, they ought to have acted fairly andin strict adherence to the principles of natural iustice. However, sincethe learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted thatthe impugned revocation letters passed against the petitioners standwithdrawn to the extent of revocalion of permission to construct buildings. tl e said submiss on is placed on record. [-he ]impugnedrevocation l,tters pessed br' lhe respondent authoriti{ s against thepetitioners s ,rrd wit ldrawn t,, tlre extent of revocation o permission toconstruct l;r- rldings, in term ; of submissions made b [, ]the learnedSpecial Gcv,'rrrmenl Pleader ['ihe ]pelitioners are dire' ted to submittheir explan; rtions t ) the o5jections pointed out in 1e impugnedrevocation le ters to the responcent authorities within a period of twoweeks fronr today. On sL ch submission of explan: tions by thepetilioners, tle resp( ndent ar thcrities are entitled to pas; appropriateorders, in ac:ordanc; with tl,e provisions of TS-bPASS Act and theRules made trereun( er, within a period of one week fror r the date ofreceipl of suc r expla rations. ln case, if no orders are p lssed by therespondent althoritier within the time indicated above, tl ere shall bedeemed appr:val 01 the at,plicalions of the [petition, ]rs filed forconslruction o. b"rildin rs. lt is nrade clear that until [passing ]of orders bythe responden aithori ies withi l the time prescribed on the rxplanationssubmitted by t re petit lners, tfe [petitioners ]shall not [proc( ]ed with anylype of constru rtions ir their respective subject lands.
'13.
'13. As r( gards the ccntention of the learned counsel forlhe [petitioner ]ir !Y.P.N o. 3266t of 2021 lhat the revocatio r order waspassed without [.ecordirrg ]any ol',jections, the respondenl aL horities aredirected to brirg the c biections to the notice of the petiti( ner thereinwithin a perict Df on -. week from today; and on rece lt of suchobjections, the petitior er shall sLrbmit his explanalion t ) the saidobjections withi r two 'veeks tf ereafter; and on submissi [,n ]of suchexplanation by llre petil oner, tho respondent authorities ar€ entitled topass appropri€rt( orders in accor(Jance with the provisions of IS-bPASSAct and the Rul )s mad ) thereut,der within one [week ]from [he ][date of]receipt of such [( ]xplanat cn. lt is made clear thal until [passin ]; [of ][orders]by the respo''x ent au:horities wrthin the time [prescrib( ]I [on ][the]explanations sub'nitted t [y ]the [pe|tiorrer, ]the [petitioner shall ][n ][)t proceed]with any type or [( ]onslruc ions in h,s subject land.'4. ln view of th? abo'e, the [rivrit ]Petition is allowed setting asidethe revocation orde datert 02_12 2A22. The respondent ; are directedto follow the guidelirres / d rectionr; issued by this Court ir Writ Petition /
To,
No.20398 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2021 andpass orders inaccordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions,if any pending in this writ petition, shallstand closedaccordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions,if any pending in this writ petition, shallstand closed I
SD/. T. JAYASREEASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
1 . The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, [Tankbund,]HyderabadHyderabad2. The Zonal Commissioner, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad District.3. The City Planner, Secunderabad Zone, [Hyderabad ]District.3. The City Planner, Secunderabad Zone, [Hyderabad ]District.
4. The Asst. City Planner, Secunderabad Zone, Hyderabad District.
5. One CC to SRI. KATIGHARANIL KUMARAdvocate IOPUC]IOPUC]
6. Two CC to SN.K. RAVINDER REDDY, [SC, ]High Court [at ][Hyderabad ][OUT]7. Two CD Copies7. Two CD Copies \
HIGI{ COUR]
LKJ
DATED:29llzt'. [(t22]
IiE [SIA]14:ORDER.t)>u3 11 JAtl2023WP.No.46441 o1 ['.t(12Z]o+-'i/\% \e/
WP IS ALLOV/r'1D [\VITrI ][.\rO ]COSTS