WP/42522/2015 of M/s. SREE SR DEVELOPERS, a partnership Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.42522 of 2015

Date:30.12.2015

Between:

M/s Sree SR Developers,Nalagandla Village, Ranga ReddyDistrict, reptd by its Partner-Dogiparthi Naga Sunil Kumar

..... Petitioner

And:The State of Telangana, reptd., by itsPrincipal Secretary, Municipal Administration& Urban Development Department,Hyderabad and four others.

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Karri Murali Krishna Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Admn.(TS)Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Revenue (TS)

The Court made the following:ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declarethe action of the respondents in refusing to grant permissionand approval for construction of a building with Cellar, Stilt +

5 upper floors by letter in L.R.No.50477/13/11/2015/HO,dated 11.12.2015, of respondent No.5 in respect of PlotNos.219/A and 219/B, admeasuring 1,050 square yards inSurvey No.44/1 of Matrusri Co-Operative House BuildingSociety Limited, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitionersought for a consequential direction to the respondents togrant the building permission.

A perusal of rejection letter, dated 11.12.2015, issuedby respondent No.5, shows that the only ground on whichthe petitioner’s application was rejected was that in respectof Survey No.44 in which the petitioner’s plot is alsosituated, L.G.C.No.29/06 filed by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Chevella, against M/s Matrusri Co-operative Housing Society is pending before the SpecialCourt constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,1982.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a copyof Order, dated 16.11.2007, in W.P.No.12861 of 2007 of thisCourt, wherein after referring to the common order, dated23.03.2007, in W.P.No.3973 of 2007 and batch passed by aDivision Bench of this Court, it was held as under:

“Having regard to the fact that no injunction issubsisting against the petitioner or the society fromwhom the petitioner had purchased the property, I donot see any jurisdiction for respondent No.1 to rejectthe building permission merely for the reason that aland grabbing case is pending in respect of the land ofwhich the petitioner’s land forms part. In the event theLGC goes against the petitioner and the society, it isalways open to the State to recover the property.”

Mr.Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned StandingCounsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation(GHMC), appearing for respondent No.5, has fairlyconceded that following the aforementioned order, thisCourt has allowed similar Writ Petitions.

In the light of the above noted facts, this Writ Petition isallowed in terms of Order, dated 16.11.2007, inW.P.No.12861 of 2007, with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,WPMP.No.54839 of 2015 is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA

REDDY

30[th] December, 2015DR