Smt. Jangala Susheela, v. State Of Telangana,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.14827 of 2017 ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with a prayer to declare proceedings in File No.3019/ W17/ 2016/ 0140, dated 09.12.2016, issued by the 2nd respondent - Kothagudem Municipality, as illegal and arbitrary, besides directing not to interfere with the constructions in the property of an extent of 63.68 square yards, bearing D.No.6-1-73 (New) (6-1-41 Old), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The case in brief is that the petitioner's husband purchased the subject property from his predecessor-in-title through sale deed dated 30.11.1982 by virtue of an order passed on 16.03.1982 in A.A.O. No.172 of 1982. Petitioner's husband died on 04.06.2013 leaving behind him the petitioner and one daughter and two sons as his legal heirs. In the year 2003, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department passed orders in O.A. No.40 of 2003 holding that the subject property is endowed property and directed to proceed under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. Challenging the said order, the petitioner and others filed appeal before the V Additional District judge, Kothagudem and the said appeal was allowed by setting aside the order in O.A. No.40 of 2003.

Challenging the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department preferred Second Appeal before this Court. This Court granted interim suspension of the appellate Court's order and the petitioner and others filed vacate stay application, upon which this Court directed the petitioner and others to proceed with the construction without claiming any equities subject to the result of the Second Appeal.

has issued G.O.Ms.No.373 Revenue Department, dated 24.03.2005, for regularization of the alleged unauthorized occupations and the petitioner's husband submitted an application to the respondents to regularize the house as per the G.O., and the same is pending before the Revenue authorities.

Since the structure in the said property was too old, the petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission for construction of G + 2 floors. The said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any ownership documents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No.3851 of 2015 before this Court and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to submit fresh application and also directing the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner filed fresh application along with the relevant documents. But, the 2nd respondent, without considering the same, issued notices to the petitioner to stop the construction.

Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation along with all the documents under registered post. Having received the same, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action to sanction the plan of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.32142 of 2015 with a prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to process the application of the petitioner. In WPMP No.36887 of 2016 in WP No.32142 of 2016, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application for building permission within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order subject to condition that the construction would be subject to result of the Second Appeal. Thereafter, on the directions of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted her application through online.

without taking into consideration the order passed by this Court, rejected the application of the petitioner through the impugned letter, stating the following remarks:

i.

Applicant not enclosed the ownership documents (i.e. regularization conveyance deed from the revenue department as per G.O.No.373 dated 24.03.2005). ii.

Applicant not enclosed the proper link documents. iii.

Enclosed house tax receipt instead of encumbrance. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by her for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.373 is pending before the Revenue authorities and that the 2nd respondent, without considering the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, rejected her building permission application on the ground of non-enclosure of regularization conveyance deed from the Revenue Department and also interfering with the construction activity over the subject premises. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that since the petitioner is an unauthorized occupier, the application of the petitioner for building permission was not considered.

Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides and also the grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: The respondents are directed not to interfere with the construction of the petitioner over the property an extent of 63.68 square yards, bearing D.No.

application filed by the petitioner for regularization of the property, which is pending before the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

______________ RAJA ELANGO, J July 18, 2017 KTL