T. Sashikant v. State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-20. T. Sashikant v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3166 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 3613 OF 2024 Between: T. Sashikant, S/o. T. Ravindranath Aged. 59 years Occ. Doctor R/o. H. No. lB, Vayupuri Arr force officers Colony Housing Society Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500094 ... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary Municipal and Urban Administration Department Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad. Hyderabad. 2 Greater Warangal Ir,4unicipal Corporation, Warangal Represented by its Commissioner 3 Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation Warangal Urban District 4 City Planner, Greater Warangal lvlunicipal Corporation Warangal Urban District. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction, one more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other writ including or any combination of writs declaring the act of the Respondent authorities i. e. Respondent No. 2 and 3 in issuing proceedings dt. 26. O9. 2023 in File No. 0075'19/BP/DTCP/3006/026812023 in furtherance to Application No. 007519/BP/DTCP/3006/026812023 dt. 02. 07-2023 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the provislons of the Telangana tt4unicipalities Act,2019, setting aside the same and consequently set aside the same, directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to grant building permission in Application No. 007519/BP/DTCP/3006/026812023 dt. 2. O7.
2023 in respect of subject property in favor of the Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondent No -2 and 3 to grant buirding permission in apprication No. 007519/B P/DTCP/3006/0 26812023 dated 02. o7. 2023 in respect of subject property in favor of the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Gp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: SRI S. SURENER REDDy, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRI't PETI'I'ION No. 3613 of 2024 ORDEII,: This Writ Petition is filed lor issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the act of respondent authorities, in pafticular respondcnt Nos.
2 and 3, in issuing proceedings dated 26-09-2023 rejecting the building permission application made by the petitionel on 02-07-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional aparr fiom being contrary to thc provisions ol the Telangana Municipatities Act, 20 19, with a consequential relief to set aside the same. 2. Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned Govemrnent Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Dcveloprnent appcaring on bchalf of respondent No. l and Sri S. Surender Reddy, Ieamcd Standing Counsel appearing on behalf olrespondent Nos. 2 to 4, and pen. rsed the record. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up lbr hearing and disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioncr contends that being the absolute owner and posscssor of propcrry bearing IIousc No. l5-i-999 (previously Municipal No. I5- 156/l & 2) Rangarnpet, Warangal a(lmeasuring to an extent ol 1900 sq.
vards, hc had approached the respondent authorities and subrnitted an application seeking grant of pennission fbr construction of comrnercial building consisting of I cellar + I ground + 3 upper floors; and thal the respondent authorities hacl issued a shortfall intimation letter dated l2-07-2023 noting therein certain shorlfalls 4. Petitioner fufthel contends that in order to cornply with the albresaid shortfall noted in the intimaticrn letter dated | 2-07 -2023, petitioner had made a visit to the of fice of the 2"d respondent authority and submitted documents in order to comply with thc sholtlalls noted 5. Petitioner further contends that notu ithstanding the sulrmission ol the documents to relnovc the shor-tfalls noted ln the proceedings dated 12-01-2023, the 2"'i respondent authority has issued impugned proceedings dated 26-09-2023 re. iecting the application rnade by the petitioner fbr grant of permission on the ground that the subject site is lalling in (lovernment land 6.
Petitioner further contends that the said obiection raised by the 2"d respondent, rvhile considering thc application made bv lhe petitioner, was subject marter of a Writ Pctition befbrc this Courr in W. P. No. 2568 ol 1992, wherein this Court. by order dated / n... -: 07- I l- 1992. had ncgatived tlrc clairn of the Governrncnt and as such, the said objection is no longer sustainable. 7. I-earned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the decision of this Court in W. P. No. 2568 ol I992 has also been brought to the notice of the respondent authorities in response to the shorlfall intimation issued and without considering the decision of this Court and the same having attained finality as brought to thc notice of the Authorities, the impugned ploceeding has been issued. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behallof respondcnt Nos.
2 to 4, on the other hand, submits that in response to the shortlall intimation issued vide proceedings dated 12-01-2023, the petitioner did not submit any documents complying with the shortfalls as noted in the shortlall intimation which is required to be done through online process by uploading various documents. 9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the petitioner did not upload any documents in response to the shortfall ir. rtirnalion through TS-bPASS onlinc proccss, the Authorities, by thc irnpugned order, have rejected the application nrade b. v the pctitioner fbr grant ol'building pcrmission. i, 10. Learned Standing Counsel lurrl. rer submits thar il the petitioner makes a fresh application ii,ith all rclevant documents and by paying llecessary f'ee, the Authorities u,ould consider the application on its merit aliesh. I l. I have taken note of respective contentions trrged 12.
Though petitioncr, in response to rhe shorti'all intimation letter, claims to have approached the respondent authorities in person and submitted documents to colnpl), wit r rlte objections raised in the shortt'all intimation lctter, learned counsel fbr petitioner lairly submits that thcre is no acknowledgment obtained by the petitioner for submission of said ,locuments. 13. Leamed counsel lor the pctitioner fufther fairly submits that except approaching the respondent authoritics in person, the petitioner did not takes steps to cornply with the objections l I I raised through TS-bPASS online process I 14. However, it is to be noted that the groun<l of rejection as noted by the respondent authorit), in the in-rpugned proceeding is by stating that the site is falling in Governnrent land. The building pennission application submitted br tl-rc pctitioncr shows that he had apptied fbr grant of building pcnnission in ;---7 respect of land in Sy. No. 725 with Door No.
l5-3-99 situated at Rangampet Main Road, beside Regional Library, Warangal, and the subject property was lnatter of dispute and considered by this Court in W. P. No. 2568 of 1992, and thus, the claim of the respondent authorities in rejecting to grant permission on the glound that thc subject land is Government land, cannot be considered as a valid ground any more 15. However. taking note of the lact that the building permission application submitted by the petitioner having been rejected by the impugned proceeding, this Court is of the view I that the petitioner should be directed to approach the respondent authorities by submitting fiesh application enclosing therewith all the relevant documents including the order ol this Court in W. P. No. 2568 of 1992 as well as Encumbrance Certiflcate issued by thc Sub-lLegistrar indicating that the subject property is not placed in the prohibitory list, and seek for grant of building permission. 16.
[Jpon petitioncr approaching thc respondent authorities and making application with all the aforesaid documents and intbrmation, the 2"d respondent authority shall consider the same bl looking into the olders of this Courl in W. P. No. 2568 of 1992 , as well as the Encumbrance Certitlcate issr-red bv the Sub- Registrar, which petitioner clailns does not indicatc thc sub. iect property being placed under the prohibitory list and grant building permission, if the said application is othcnvise in order. 17. Subjcct to above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of . No costs 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pend,ng if any shall stand closed SD/. A. V. S. PRASAD ASSISTANT GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary [t/unicipal and Urban Adminislration Department Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad- Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corplration, Warangal 3.
The Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municrpal Corp:ration Warangal Urban District 4. The City Planner, Greater Warangal [Vlunicipal Corpor,ation Warangal Urban District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADIVINISTRATIO|I AND URBAN DEVEL_OPM_ENT ,High Court for the State of Telanqarra, at Hyderabad [OUT] - 6. One CC to SRl. N NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate IOFUCI 7. Two CD Copies BM GJP { \- HIGH COURT DATED:2010212024 S Ia 1HE 14 e ( o 0 5 ilAB 202{ ) I t * | . ;/ o u(f '/ ORDER WP. No. 3613 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.