Bobbiligarna Jyothi v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation And Another
[ 32s6 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD , (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9419 and 9482 ot 2020 WRIT PETITION O: 9419 OF 2020 Between:
- - i.- eoUUiligama Jyothi, Wo. A. Madhu, Aged about 32 yqars, Occ. Hous-ewife, R/o. H.-No.2. - 4111, Goutami Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad
2. Marpu Venugopal, S/o. M. Nar-yan Reddy, Aged about.4S Yearq O9c. Privbte Empi-oyee, R/o. H.No. 9-- 85, Boppapuram, Karimangar District, Telangana State ...PETITIONERS AND
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle.2l, GHMC, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga ReddY District ..-RESP.NDENT'
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court m5y be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting petitioners application for building permission vide Lr.No.101S/TPS tC211GHMC]2O2O, dated 15lOGt2O20 as illegal arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Munlcipal Corporation Act, 1g5S and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to grant building permission as prayed for in application bearing file No.3/C21lO1015t2O20 as directed in W.P.No.4228212015 dt.1210912016 and W.P.No.3441212014 dt.08/1212014.
lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to grant building permission vide application bearing file No.3/ C21|O1O15:2O2O as directed in W.P.No .42282t2015 Dt. 12l}gt2}16 and W.P. No.3441 212014 Dt. 08/1 2t2014 pending disposal of the above writ petition.
il2il WRIT PETITION NO: 9482 OF 2020 Between:
1. Sanna Ramadevi, Wo Housewife, R/o. H, No Hyderabad.
2. Sanna Sumitra, Wo . Sanna Srinivas Yadav, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 6 - 4 - 41, Balanagar Cross Road, Balanagar, HYderabad ..PET',.NERS AND 1.
The Greater Hyderabad [\Iunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.
.
The Deputy Corrimissioner, Circle - 21, GHMC., Serilingampally Maridal, Ranga Reddy District'
..RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the Sanna Prakash, Aged about 36 years,. Occ.
6 - 4 - 41, Balanagar Cross Road, Balanagar, circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court mgy be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2mt respondent in rejecting petitioners application for building permission vide Lr.No. 1014nPsrc2 /GHMC/2020 dated 1510612020 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to grant building permission as prayed for in application bearing file No. 31C211010412020 as directed in W.P. No. 42282 of 2015 Dt. 1210912016 and W.P. No. 34412 of 2014 Dt. 08/1212014.
lA NO: I oF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to grant building permission vide application bearing file No.3/C2110101412020 as directed in W.P.No.4228212015 dt.1210912}16 and W,P.No.3441212014 dt. 08/1212014, pending disposal of theaboye writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner in both cases : SRl. S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents in both cases: SRI M.A.K.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9419 and 9482 of 2O2O co, ON ORDER :
The lis involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same and therefore the same were heard together and disposed of ,by way of this common order at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.
2.
These writ petitions are filed with the following reliefs. "....to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting petitioners application for building permission vide Lr No. 1015/TPS lC21IGHMC l2o2o dated I5l06/2020 as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to grant building permission as prayed for in application bearing file No.3lC21lOlO15l2O2O as directed in W.P.No.
4228212015 dt t2l09 l2o 16 and W.P.No. 3441212Ot4 dt 08/ 12/2014 and pass..."
"....to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting petitioners application for building permission vide Lr No. to 14 / TPS I C21 / GHMC I 2O2o dated LS I 06 I 2o2o
as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to grant building permission as prayed for in application bearing file No. 31C21/01014 l2O2O as directed in W.P.No.
42282/2015 dt L2/0912016 and W.P.No. 3441212Or4 dt OB/ 12 l2O 14 and pass..."
3.
Heard M/s. S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. M.A.K.Mukeed, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
4.
For the convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.9419 of 2O2O are stated hereunder.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of Plot bearing No.33 ad.measuring 225 square yards or 188.1 Square meters in Sy.No .41/ 12 and 4 L / 13, situated at Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.17795 of 2Ol9 dated Og.Og.2Olg and that their vendor obtained the title over the subject property through a registered Gift settlement Deed document bearing No.7345 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003. It is the further case of the petitioners that thqir _-.
vendor had made an application seeking fegUlarization of the subject land under LRS scheme and respondent No.l after considering his application regularized the qaid plot vide proceedings No.LRS/ 1046/CR-12/West ZonelGHMC/2013 dated 18.10.2013. The petitioners after purchasing the said property, made a'n application bearing file No.3/C21l010 15l2o2O dated lg.o2.2oL8 seeking building permission duly enclosing all the relevant documents for consideration of respondent No. 1-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and respondent No.1 vide letter No.E1 ltllll2OlT dated O3.O4.2O17 informed that the lands in survey Nos.41/2 and 4l lL3 are government lands and rejected the building permission application. Aggrieved by the rejection order of respondent No.1, the petitioners filed W.P.No.253B9 of 2019. This Court vide orders dated O2.12.
2OL9 has set aside the rejection order passed by respondent No.1 directing tJle respondent authorities to consider the application for building permission submitted by the petitioners.
(bc
1"r,,, . * 19.03.2020 and in view of the same, it is not feasible to grant building permission as per the building norms. 6.
Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that petitioners are not entitled for building permission on the ground that major part of the subject site is getting affected under the proposed 100 feet wide slip road. Therefore, they are not in a position to grant building permission as prayed by the petitioners.
7.
The main contention of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of Plot bearing No.33 admeasuring 225 square yards or 188.1 Square meters in Sy.No.4lll2 and 4L/L3, having acquired the same through registered sale deed, however respondent No.1 without invoking the tand acquisition proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2ol3 (for short the Act) has taken possession of their land. According to the petitioners, respondents have !l i laid the road leaving a small portion of 2l Sq.yards. When the petitioners made an application seeking building permission on the remaining 2L sq.yards which was not acquired by the GHMC, neither they are coming forward to grant building
f.\ permission, nor they are acquiring the ' same by paying compensation under the provisions of the Act. B. It is a settled principle of law that the authorities are not entitled to take possession of the property without following due procedure laid down under land acquisition Act. Further \ respondent No.l also issued a notification No.C/L36/2O20 \ dated 2O.O7.2O20 stating that a total extent of 300 sq.yards of land is required for public purpose i.e., laying of 100 feet wide road from Hitex Road to Environ Raod (via Bhagranager colony road). The notification also states that land forming part of survey Nos.44/L2 and 4|ll3 to an extent of 150 Sq. yards belonging to each of the petitioners is proposed for acquisition. It also establishes the right of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and entitled for compensation over the subject land.
9.
Therefore, respondents are directed to initiate steps immediately for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 or if the municipal corporation does not require the remaining extent of land which was not acquired as'per the notification, they shall allow the petitioner to proceed with the constructions in accordance with law. */ l
10. With the above observations, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- C. PRAVEEN KIJMAR / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// i|,/IV OFFICER To,1' The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation And Another, ^ Ignkbund, Hyderabad.
2' fhe. pepyty Commissioner, Circle.2l, GHMC Serilingar;rpally 1\Iandat Ranga Reddv District
3. One eC to SRl. S. SRTDHAR Advocate IopUCr
4. ONE CC tO SRI. M.A.K. MUKHEED (SC FOR CTTN,ICI TOPUC]
5. Two CD Copies CHR LS N"-- SECTION Qh \<r
HIGH COURT DATED iA310212023 '1 dE ST/r]t'
,r 2 0 t|lAn 2[23 COMMON ORDER f:"'
t Vll.P.No.94l9 and 9482 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS.
WITHOUT COSTS