Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 740 (TS)

Chilumula Madhujudhan v. State of Telangana

2024-09-12

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and with the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is to the inaction of the 3rd respondent in initiating action against the illegal construction being carried out by the 4th respondent without any permission from the 3rd respondent by encroaching on to the plot of the petitioner admeasuring 120.11 square yards out of 230 square yards comprised in Sy. No. 193/A/1 situated at Yashwantapur village, Jangaon Mandal and District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2021 and also obtaining building permission from the 3rd respondent dated 06.08.2022. 4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on the unofficial respondent undertaking construction in the petitioner’s land without obtaining any valid permission or sanction from the authorities, he had approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation dated 07.08.2024 calling upon the unofficial respondent to take action against the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondent and inspite of the same no action is taken. Hence, this Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities and obtained building permission through TS-bPASS Act, 2020 (for short ‘Act of 2020’) instant approval on 06.08.2022 for construction of stilt + 1 upper floor with a total built up area of 132.42 square metres in the ground floor and 66.21 square metres in the 1st floor. 6. 6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid instant building approval obtained by the petitioner through Act of 2020 online process was subject to post-verification by the authorities in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 2020 and the authorities having caused verification within the aforesaid period of 21 days have rejected/revoked the aforesaid instant building permission obtained on 25.08.2022, by uploading the aforesaid rejection on the TS-bPASS. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the authorities rejecting/revoking the instant building approval obtained by the petitioner, the amount paid by the petitioner at the time of making application has also been remitted back to his account. 8. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the unofficial respondent thereafter made an application for grant of building permission and the authorities by considering the prima facie title and lawful possession of the said land have granted building permission on 14.03.2023. 9. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that the construction made by the unofficial respondent is based on a building permission obtained by him and, as such, the said construction cannot be considered as unauthorized and illegal construction. 10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the petitioner had submitted representation dated 07.08.2024 claiming the said construction made by the unofficial respondent as unauthorized and illegal, the 3rd respondent authority ought to have communicated to the petitioner of the fact of the unofficial respondent having made construction on the basis of the building permission dated 14.03.2023. 11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is due to inadvertence, the 3rd respondent had failed to inform the petitioner of the action taken on his representation. 12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 13. This Court in W.P. No. 20000 of 2006 had held that when a representation is submitted, the authorities are required to look into the same and inform/communicate the action taken thereon within a period of two weeks. The said order of this Court being a judicial order binds not only the concerned parties in the aforesaid Writ Petition, but also being a judgment in rem need to be followed by all the concerned parties be it the Municipal authorities or the authorities of the Corporation. 14. The said order of this Court being a judicial order binds not only the concerned parties in the aforesaid Writ Petition, but also being a judgment in rem need to be followed by all the concerned parties be it the Municipal authorities or the authorities of the Corporation. 14. In the facts of the present case, though the petitioner claims of the unofficial respondent making construction without obtaining any building permission or sanction from the concerned authorities, it has been brought to the notice of the construction now that the unofficial respondent having been granted permission, while the permission obtained by the petitioner dated 06.08.2022 having been revoked on 25.08.2022 by uploading the rejection on the TS-bPASS portal. Though it was sought to be contended that the petitioner was not issued with any such order, the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as the TS-bPASS online process itself provides that the permission obtained through online is required to be verified within a period of 21 days and if any short fall or rejection is issued, the same would also be reflected in the portal itself and it is only after expiry of the 21 days the building permission obtained through TS-bPASS online process would attain the status of deemed approval. 15. Further, this Court considering the similar contention in W.P. No. 2449 of 2023 by its order dated 31.10.2023 had held that if the building permission obtained through TS-bPASS online process is rejected within 21 days, no notice in writing is necessary and the communication of the same through portal is sufficient. That being the position, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he having been granted permission for construction of Ground + 1 upper floor and the said permission being in force, the unofficial respondent having encroached into his land and making construction therein. 16. Further in the instant approval of building permission obtained by the petitioner one of the conditions mentioned therein is with regard to the petitioner requiring to commence construction within six months from the date of permission by issuing an intimation of commencement of construction. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not submit any intimation of commencement of construction of building as per the permission obtained, the same would result in the permission getting lapsed. 17. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not submit any intimation of commencement of construction of building as per the permission obtained, the same would result in the permission getting lapsed. 17. It is also to be noted that the unofficial respondent having obtained building permission for undertaking construction by approaching the respondent authorities, vide proceedings dated 14.03.2023, the said construction made by the unofficial respondent cannot be held as an unauthorized and illegal construction for the authorities to take action. 18. If only the unofficial respondent had encroached on to the petitioner’s land to an extent of 120.11 square yards and making construction therein, the petitioner is required to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and avail the civil remedies against such encroachment. Instead, the petitioner by the present Writ Petition has sought to claim that the said construction being made by the unofficial respondent to be without any permission or sanction and inspite of approaching the respondent authorities seeking for initiation of action thereon, no action being taken therein, which for the reasons as noted above cannot be considered as an unauthorized and illegal construction warranting action at the hands of the 3rd respondent. 19. While the above being the position with regard to the construction made by the unofficial respondent, it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent on whom a duty and responsibility cast under Sections 52 and 53 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 ought to have responded to the representation submitted by the petitioner informing of the aforesaid factual aspect to enable him to avail the remedies open to him in law. 20. The 3rd respondent authority instead of undertaking such exercise had kept quite, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by the present Writ Petition. Due to non-communication of the action taken by the 3rd respondent authority, the petitioner had approached this Court firstly, claiming that while his building permission being in force, the unofficial respondent making construction therein and secondly, even after approaching the 3rd respondent authority and submitting a representation, no action being taken there-against. All the above mentioned actions could have been avoided, if only the 3rd respondent had acted diligently in discharging his duties and responsibilities. 21. All the above mentioned actions could have been avoided, if only the 3rd respondent had acted diligently in discharging his duties and responsibilities. 21. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that while the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition and should be relegated to avail the remedies open to him in law against the grant of building permission in favour of the 3rd respondent or the unofficial respondent encroaching on to his land and rejection of his building permission. Further, this Court is also of the view that the matter to should receive due attention of the 1st respondent with regard to the inaction of the 3rd respondent authority in dealing and disposing with the representation submitted. 22. However, it is to be noted that such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities at field level is not specific to the facts of this case, but this Court has noticed inaction by various Commissioners who are discharging functions as Municipal Commissioners without knowing powers and duties conferred on them under the Act. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 23. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.