V.Shashirekha v. The 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 2024-12-02. V.Shashirekha v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
t [ 3166 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SrcOND DAY OF DECEMEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:29200 OF m24 Between: V. Shashirekha, D/o G. Darshan W/o Srinivas Aged about 35 years Occ Household R/o H. NO. 16-2-7511931B. 11/AJ1 , Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep resented by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administratron and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner',GHMC, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Zonal Commrssioner GHIvlC, Circle -Vl , Malakpet, Hyderabad_ 4 The Deputy Commissioner GHlt/C, Circle -Vl , Malakpet, Hyderabad. 5 The Town Plannrng Officer GHMC, Circle -Vl , Malakpet, Hyderabad. 6 A. Aruna, W/o. A. Anand Reddy Occ. House wife, No. 16-2-7 S2lK 1 11, Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 7 A Anand Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy, Aged about 73 years, Occ.
Business, No. 16-2-7521K11 1 l, Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ... 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 08-10-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take aclion pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 08-10-2024 immediately in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in " pleased the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be to direct the respondents to take action pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 0B-10-2024 immediatly in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D. RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counset for Respondent No. 2to5:SRl RAPARATHI VENKATESH,SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondent No. 6&7 : SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SzuJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR 920O WRIT PET ITION No. 2 of2L24 ORDER: /// the petitioner, leamed Heard leamed counsel for and Urban for Municipal Administration Govemment Pleader Raparthi of respondent No' l, Sri Development appearing on behalf on behalf of Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel appearing Counsel Sri respondent Nos.
2 to 5 and K'Pradeep Reddy, learned 7, and perused the appearing on behatf ot'respondent Nos'6 and for the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 2.
Shom of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in briel is that the unoftlcial respondents have made coflstruction of building without obtaining valid permission from the respondent authorities and also encroaching into land of petitioner in Sy'No'S1 I l claiming the same forming part of land in Sy'Nos'48, 50' 54 to 60 l situated at Sai Ram Colonl', SBH Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad' and in spite of she approaching the respondent authorities and dated 08-10-2024 seeking for initiating submitting representation action, no action is taken against the aforesaid unauthorized and \ illegal construction being made, which action it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 3. Per contra,leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalfof respondent Nos.
2 to 5 submits that the unofficial respondents have obtained building permission lor undertaking the construction and as such, the said construction cannot be held as unauthorized and illegal construction for the authorities to take action thereagainst 4. Learned Standing Counsel lurther submits that in order to grant building permission, the authorities are only required to see prima title and legal possession and arc not entitled to facie adjudicate any rival claims with regard to title of the subject property or with regard to boundaries 5. Learned Standing Counsel Further submits that since the petitioner has claimed to have initiated civil procecdings in respect of the subject land against the unolficial respondents alleging to have encroached into her land in Sy. No. -5 I clairning the same as part of land in Sy. Nos. 48, 50. 54 to 60, the petitioner has to await the result of the civil proceedings initiated, and for the said reason, / the Writ Petition as filed is premature.
t /, 6. I have taken note of respective contentions urged. Municipal Authorities while 7 . It is settled position of law that disputes, are granting building permission cannot adjudicate title only required to consider pri ma and legal possession It is facie title also settled position ol law that mere grant of building permission being does not confer or contbrm titte to the subject land claimed under building permission. 8. Since, the petitioner alleges that the unofficial respondents by ctaiming to have obtained building permission from the respondent authorities, are encroaching into her land in Sy. No. 5l and making constructions thereon, the said dispute is one of \ \ identification and localization of the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 51 while that of the unof ficial respondents in Sy. Nos. 48, 50, 54 to 60, which can only be rcsolved by the competent Civil Court by getting a sun/ey conducted through concemed Survey Authorities.
In absence ot' petitioner not undertaking such course of action, it is not open tbr thc petitioner to allege inaction on the part of respondent authoritics in cancelling the building permission or LRS granted in favour of the unofficial respondents nor can such a direction can be given to the authorities in Writ jurisdiction pending adjudication of civil disputes. 9 However, upon petitioner being decrared successful in civir proceedings initiated by her before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities to initiate action against the construction being made or made by the unofficial respondents. 10. Subject to above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs ll. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (') ECTION OFFICER To, 1.
The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad. -Vl tt4alakpet, Hyderabad 3 The Zonal Commissioner GHMC, Circle , 4. The Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle -Vl , Malakpet, Hyderabad -Vl The Town Planning Officer GHMC, Circle Malakpet. Hyderabad. 6 One CC to SRI D. RAMAKRISHNA, Advocate IOPUC] of 7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High court for the state Telangana. [OUT] 8 One CC to SRI RAPARATHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHI\4C IOPUC] 9 One CC to SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY, ADVOCATE IOPUCI 10 Two CD Copies. ^ ,Q) c BSK (P' ---a'\ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0211212024 . 4. - . , t* / -. <. \ q ,t o 2 5 l. t ii 2025 ( rl -\' t o D1' ORDER s t)/i'r c$c WP. No. 29200 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.