WP/31083/2013 of Represented by its Field Secretary Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 April 2026

ORDER

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action on the representations made by the petitioner in cancelling the permission granted in favour of the 3.d respondent for the construction of commercial complex in the land belonging to the Machine Compound of Baptist Church in survey No. 1147 to 1 150 WP.No.31083 of 2013

in Hanumakonda, Waranga.l District, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2"a respondent to cancel the permission granted uide R O.P.No.G4.9T3l2OO3, dt.22.O7.2OO4, in favour of the 3'd respondent and to issue such other order or orders or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

2. The brii:f lacts of the case are that the Samaveshan of Telugu Baptist Churches is having vast properties in the States of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana), Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Nagaland, and the saicl properties are being looked after by the Property Association of Baptist Churches purporting to act in terms of the orders passed by the Madras High Court in C.P.Nos. 1O9 and I l0 of lg73, and for the purpose of administration, the org:inization is divided into fields, and one such field is the Field Association of Hanumakonda.

3. It is stated thar an extenr of Ac.g.O0 guntas in Survey Nos.1147 to 1 150 of Hanamkonda, knou,n as Machine Compound, situated on the main road from Warangal to Kazipet, belongs to ? the said organization, and it does not provide for any property association at the field level, however, certain Persons styling themselves as Property Association of Hanumakonda Field have made an application to the 2"d respondent for permission to construct a commercial complex uide Application No'973/2003 in an extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas, and thereafter entered into a development agreement with M/ s. Orugallu Constructions and commenced construction.

4. It is further stated that the petitioners approached the Hon,bleHighCourtofJudicatureatMadras,whichinitially granted injunction, and thereafter in Contempt Application Nos.89, 269, 441 and 444 to 459 of 2O03, the persons who obtained permission were arrayed as respondents, and they have given an undertaking on 27.O7.2OO4 that they will not interfere with the property, and the said contempt cases were finally disposed of on 02.08.2006 holding that all alienations such as sale, Iease, gift or any other transactions are bad in law'

5. It is stated that the alleged possession of the 3'd respondent over the subject properties by virtue of development agreement with M / s. Orugallu Constructions is invalid and therefore the permlssion granted by the 2"a respondent has no legal effect, and when these facts were brought to the notice of the District collector, waralgal, he directed the District Revenue officer, Warangal, to stop the construction by taking appropriate action.

6. It is further stated that despite the same, the 3.a respondent continued the construction, and filed o.S. No.17/20og on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Warangal, which was dismissed on 26.O2.2OOg, and thereafter the petitioners have been making representations to the 2"d respondent for calcellation of the permission granted to the 3rd respondent, but no action has been taken. 7 ' It is stated that though the 2nd respondent was aware of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Madras as u,ell as the Civil Court, and initially responded to the representations and assured cancellation, but, due to the pressure of vested interested persons, no steps were taken thereafter, and in a similar matter, the Honble High Court in W.p. No.19l5O of 2OO7 set aside the permission gralted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and therefore the petitioners requested the 2"d responden t to cancel the permission granted vide

R.O.P.No.G4.973/2OO3, dt.27.O7.2004, but the 2.d respondent failed to take action in accordance with law.

8. Therefore, questioning the inaction of the respondents, particularly, of the 2"a respondent in not carcelling the permission and having failed to discharge their duty in spite of the orders of the competent Courts, the present writ petition is filed seeking cancellation of the permission granted in favour of the 3.d respondent for construction of a commercial complex in the land belonging to the Mission Compound of Baptist Church in Survey Nos.1147 to 1150.

9. Heard. Sri Rdmesh Chitla, Iearned counsel Jor the petltioner, Sri Pcshcm Mohith, learned. Standlng Counsel for respond.ent No.2 o'nd Srl Bomrnineni Viueka;nanda, learned. counsel for respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the writ averments, would contend that the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is binding on the 2nd respondent, and the said authority being duty bound to give effect to the said orders, cannot act in disregard of the same, and thus, the 2"d respondent ought to have considered the representation made b],the petitioner and ought to have taken proper decision by duly examining the material placed and the orders of the competent Courts, and accordingly prayed to allow the present writ petition by cancelling the permission granted in favour of the

3. d respondent. 1 L The learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2"d respondent, Sri Pasham Mohit, while denying the nrit averments and placing reliance on the counter affidavit liled , contended that the petitioner relied upon the suits and proceedings, to which the respondent-Corporation is not a party, and there are no restraint orders against the respondent Corporation in issuing permission to respondent No.3 l.rerein. It is also stated that the building permission, which the petitioner herein seeks cancellation, by way of present Writ Petition, was issued on 22.07 .2004 in favour of the

3. d respondent and the said construction was already completed way back in the year 2008 and the property was also assessed by giving house No.6 l-2'25 11,2,3,4 & 6 in the name of individuals. He further contended that after a period of 9 years from the date of issuance of the szud building permission, the present writ petition is fited seeking cancellation of the said permission and thus, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition' on this ground alone. L2. Sri Bommineni Vivekanalda, learned counsel appearing for the 3,a respondent, placing reliance on the colrnter affidavit frled, contended stated that the writ petition has been filed challenging the permission granted in favour of the 3'a respondent in the land belonging to the Mission Compound of Baptist Church and the present writ petition is a vexatious litigation launched by the petitioner and is in no way concerned with the said property and the petitioner without there being a substaltial proof or proper records, to establish its right over the said property' has flrled the instant writ Petition and thus the locus of the petitioner is also challenged.

13. It is further contended by the learned counsel that though it is stated by the petitioner that injunction has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the construction undertaken in the subject property, in fact' no such injunction is granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras and there are no subsisting injunction orders hled before this Court to substantiate B such claim and that the petitioner by making vague allegations that the 3.,1 rcspondent has no right over the property, has sought the cancellal ion of permission.

14. It is further contended that the subject permission was granted to the 3rd respondent way back in 2OO4 and the present writ petition has been filed in 2O 13, almost around 9 years later, by rvhrch time, the construction of the building was completed in a1l respects way back in the year 2oog and the same is also recorded by this court in cMA.No.4O1 of 2oor wherein the court at pa,ra 28, recorded that " It is settled latu that the court while disposing an application for grant of temporary injunction, shoutd. not go to the ertent of deciding the main case of the parties but the order should be a speaking ord.er, shotuing that the Court has taken a decision afi.er applging its mind.. While d.etermining the question as to grant of injunction, the Court should refrain from giuing a finding on merits of the case......", and at para 29, recorded that "To sum up, ex facie the Madras High Courl bg uirtue of ord.ers, dated O3.O5.1975, passed in Compang petition Nos.109 and_ 110 of 1974, upheld tLLe execution of Exs.p6 and. p7 tn fauour of pABC, uthich in turn executed- Deuelopment Agreement_cum_GpA in fauour -"

l of th.e appellant. Equallg, the amalgamation of ABFMS & PABC was sanctioned. It utas categoically held that there was no uiolation of order of injunction in this regard. Importantlg, tlrc appelLant has cortstntcted three floors euident from 3 plntograph"s marked as Ex.P5......"

15. It is further contended that the Honble High Court by preliminary findings in the said appeal noted that the construction is completed till 3'a floor in the year 2007 and the petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that the 3.d respondent is not authorized to construct a building in the said premises and thus, the 3.a respondent while denying other contentions in the writ affidavit, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable by the petitioner, as the petitioner having hled the instant writ petition, has not filed any supporting documents of title along with the orders of the High Courts and Civil Courts and thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

16. Ha ulng gfircn eantest consideratlon to the submisslons ma.d.e bg the leolned. counsel appearlng Jor the respectlve parties, perused the material on record.

17. Evidently, though the Writ petition is filed challenging the building permission granted in favour of the 3'a respondent stating that despite the orders of the Hontrle High Court of Madras, the said buitding permission has been granted and is therefore, liable to be cancelled, however, except a bare representation, dt. 11.10.2013, the petitioner has not hled any documents to show that the petitioner has got right, title and interest over the said property, which is a sine qua non to maintain the present writ petition.

18. Further, the petitioner has chosen to hle only the copy of the orders in Applications No.l8l and Lg2 of 2006 on the file of Hontrle High Court of Madras, wherein the petitioner was one Mr. D.Jayaraju and the 1st defendant is the property Association of Baptist church Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Executive Director Sri G.G.D. Divakar. When admittedly, the main grievance of the petitioner is against the sanctif,n of the building permission to the a

3d respondent, the purport and relevance of the said orders to the subject matter, is not stated, nor any materia-l is placed to establish a direct nexus betvv,een the said proceedings and the present lis, and in that view of the matter, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived' lg.Itisfurtherobservedthatthepetitionerhasagrievance against the grant of permission in favour of the 3'd respondent' and if there are any violations of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras or any of the jurisdictional Courts' it is for the petitioner to approach the very sarne Courts which had granted such orders complaining of the alleged breach' by invoking appropriate proceedings in accordance with law' Moreso, the permission was granted in 2OO4 and completed in 2008 and a-lmost 9 years thereafter, the present Writ Petition has been instituted.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State oJ M'P' rt' Nandlal Jaisutolt hetd that "if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filirLg a writ petition and such delag is not satisfactoilA r (198614 SCC 566

l2 explained, the High Court mag d ecline to interuene and. grant relief tn exercise of its writ prisdiction,,. 2l ' The aforesaid view is fortified by the Honble Supreme court in Citg & Industrtat Devt.Corp us Dosu Aardeshir Bhluandiutala & Ors.z wherein it was held as under: "lt is tuell settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the luisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularLg a uit of Mandamus is highly discretionary. The reLieJ' can.not be claimed. as of right. One of the grounds fo, refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guiltg of unexplained. delaq and the laches. Inordinate delag in mouing the court for a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a wit.

22. in view of the above, and further, as there are no documents to support the case of the petitioner, the present writ petition is not maintainable, more particularly, when it involves mixed questions of fact, which have to be determined by way of evidence, requiring adjudication on factual aspects which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of ') (200()) I SCC t(rS

as to costs. shall stand closed. To,

8. Two CD CoPtes TJ

,fTRUE COPY" 'RIJI;',iHiHtE'EiRiI

SECTION OFFICER India, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent civil Court having jurisdiction for the reiief claimed in the present writ petition. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed'

23. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed' No order As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any' i i I

I : i ! t 'ilf":F:i'1"il1[',?"[:"J"'"[ffi :l,8":":i:?rH:"1":g*:iTffi lL:l ,$,f;pff "#i*:1;t;;[ili:'#:'"si;ir::"ff {i*"?ririri] ^5i:":i1;,i:.1::lxl'ffi ',,1"i,'J',i1ffi i,'J.il"s'J[1ffi '1"'":?L' : i.!lifiiflf,;s*lr"ry;,.:;41g*f$#, rban Deve'Pmen'i N PSK

HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 2410412026

ORDER

WP.No.31083 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l' 3 Rp,i li ; ) '!'(" a- \ ,L .-:t i .. -'.i'l-' -',,/ \\ I ,l ,1 ?A )L