Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 164 (TS)

Madduri Narayana Reddy v. State of Telangana

2022-03-09

P.MADHAVI DEVI

body2022
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.02279/ZC/TPS/LBNZ/GHMC/2019-20 dt.05.09.2020 granting permission to the 5th respondent for construction of ground plus five floors over the plot in Sy.No.20(P) situated at Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in Permit No.2/C1/02270/2019 in File No.2/C1/23640/2018 dt.07.02.2019 which is against the building rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.168 (MA&UD) dt.07.04.2012, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the building permission granted to the 5th respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Adhi Venkateshwar Rao, submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 2420 square yards in Survey No.39 which is adjacent to the plot of the 5th respondent in Survey No.20. He submits that while converting the land, he owned, into plots, a 30 feet way which is approaching road to the 5th respondent house plot was made. It is submitted that the land in Survey No.39 as well as Survey No.20 was made into house plots without any approved layout and that subsequently, the purchasers/individuals are getting regularisation from the Government by paying the requisite fees. Accordingly, the 5th respondent also got his open plot regularised and thereafter, he approached the municipal authorities for getting construction permission by paying the requisite fee. According to the petitioner, the municipal authorities, without verifying the site physically, and only relying upon the documents submitted by the 5th respondent, have issued the construction Permit No.2/C1/02270/2019 dt.07.02.2019 and in accordance therewith, the 5th respondent has proceeded to dig pits for laying pillars and making the construction. According to the petitioner, the road which is to lead to the plots behind the subject site, has been blocked by the 5th respondent and by misrepresentation, respondent No.5 has obtained building permission and with the prayer to cancel the same, the petitioner made an application under Section 450 of the GHMC Act to GHMC. According to the petitioner, the road which is to lead to the plots behind the subject site, has been blocked by the 5th respondent and by misrepresentation, respondent No.5 has obtained building permission and with the prayer to cancel the same, the petitioner made an application under Section 450 of the GHMC Act to GHMC. It is submitted that when the authorities did not take any action, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.4990 of 2020 and by order dt.19.05.2020, this Hon’ble Court had directed respondents 2 and 3 to examine the representation of the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is submitted by the petitioner that in spite of the specific direction of this Court, no physical verification was made by the official respondents and the objections of the petitioner were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.2491 of 2021 for non-compliance of the orders and thereafter the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition and has filed the present petition challenging the impugned proceedings dt.05.09.2020. According to the petitioner, under G.O.Ms.No.168, for granting permission for construction of ground plus five floors, the basic requirement of minimum abutting existing road width should be 9 metres or 30 feet and the permission granted to the 5th respondent is in violation of the said requirement. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the official respondents have passed the impugned order dt.05.09.2020 without any application of mind and without making physical verification as required by the order of this Court in W.P.No.4990 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the contentions raised in the affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court to page 82 of the paper book and demonstrated that he is the owner of the adjacent land in Survey No.39/UU of Kapra Village, Keesara Division, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Therefore, according to him, the official respondents have not followed the directions of this Court in its letter and spirit and have rejected the application of the petitioner without application of mind. 4. Therefore, according to him, the official respondents have not followed the directions of this Court in its letter and spirit and have rejected the application of the petitioner without application of mind. 4. The official respondents, i.e., respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the provisions of Section 450 of the GHMC Act would be invoked where there is misrepresentation of facts and in this case, according to them, there is no misrepresentation of facts by the 5th respondent. It is submitted that the layout in which the subject plot is situated is an unapproved layout and individual plot owners have applied for LRS and the LRS proceedings were issued after collecting the requisite fee. It is submitted that the building permission dt.07.02.2019 was given to the 5th respondent only after the site inspection and that the official respondents have followed the directions of this Court by issuing notices to all the concerned and it is only after hearing both parties that the proceedings dt.05.09.2020 have been issued. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, appearing for the official respondents, there is no illegality in the sanctioning of the building permission in favour of the 5th respondent or in disposing of the representation of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.05.09.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Sri L. Ravi Kumar, has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is one of the vendors of his client’s predecessors-in-interest and therefore he is also bound by the sale deed executed by him. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed dt.19.02.2001 vide registered Document No.883 of 2001, wherein the petitioner being party No.5 along with 5 others has executed the sale deed in favour of the predecessors-in-title of respondent No.5 and in the schedule attached to the said sale deed, the plan of the land clearly shows that there is a 25 feet wide road leading to and ending at the plot belonging to respondent No.5. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed No.3914 of 2006 dt.04.05.2006, wherein the vendors of the sale deed dt.19.02.2001 have executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. A. Bramaramba, i.e., the vendor of respondent No.5, and also to the scheduled plan, which also shows that there is a 25 feet wide road approaching respondent No.5’s property and ending at the said plot. Further, he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney with possession bearing Document No.6266 of 2018 dt.05.11.2018, wherein Smt. A.Bramaramba has executed a sale deed in favour of Sri.S.Srinivas Reddy and Sri S.Venkat Reddy and the schedule to the said sale deed shows that there is a 30 feet wide road approaching the plot and ending into the plot. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the vendor Smt. A.Bramaramba has foregone a part of the property to widen the road from 25 feet to 30 feet and has sold the property to the vendees therein. Subsequently, vide sale deed No.6368 of 2018, AGPA holders have transferred the property in favour of respondent No.5 and the site plan annexed to the sale deed also shows 30 feet wide road ending at the property of respondent No.5. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.5, it is the petitioner, who along with others, has formed the unapproved layout and sold plots to the vendees one of whom is the vendor of the petitioner and has transferred the said properties and the petitioner is successor-in-title to the land in Survey No.20 (part). He submits that it is the vendor of respondent No.5 who got the LRS of the plot and respondent No.5 has only obtained building permission in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits that there is no misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.5 and accordingly, the official respondents, after verification of all the facts, have disposed of the representation of the petitioner by proceedings dt.05.09.2020 and it is to be upheld. 7. After hearing all the parties, this Court finds that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the factual issues of whether there was a road, leave alone 30 feet road leading to the property of the petitioner through the property of the 5th respondent. 7. After hearing all the parties, this Court finds that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the factual issues of whether there was a road, leave alone 30 feet road leading to the property of the petitioner through the property of the 5th respondent. But it can examine whether proper procedure has been followed by the official respondents in sanctioning the building permission in favour of the 5th respondent or in disposing of the representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.P.No.4990 of 2020. The direction of this Court in W.P.No.4990 of 2020 was to issue notice to all the concerned and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In accordance therewith, the official respondents have issued notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and thereafter, have passed the impugned order. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for official respondents, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, has submitted that approval/building permission given to the respondent No.5 was only after site verification and after being satisfied with the contentions of respondent No.5, and therefore, the building permission was granted after due verification. 9. After going through the documents filed by the petitioner and also the counter affidavits by the official as well as unofficial respondents, it is clear that the petitioner is one of the vendors to the sale of the property in Survey No.20 and the vendee therein is one of the predecessors-in-title of respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the contentions of the respondents except for stating that the site of the 5th respondent is shown to be in the middle of the roads. However, no such document is filed before this Court and on perusal of the documents filed along with the counter affidavits, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity committed by the official respondents in granting the building permission to respondent No.5 or in disposing of the representation of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.05.09.2020. 10. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.