M/S. Hitej Constructions, Represented By Its v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36791 of 2015 Dated 13.11.2015 Between:

M/s.Hitej Constructions rep. by its Managing Partner Smt.K.Vijaya ... Petitioner and The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Hyderabad and 4 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Karri Murali Krishna Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (TS) Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4:AGP for Revenue (TS)

The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5 in rejecting the petitioner's application, dated 27.10.2015, for grant of building permission in respect of plot No.640 in Survey No.44/1 of Matrusri Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the building permission. A perusal of rejection letter, dated 27-10-2015, issued by respondent No.5, shows that the only ground on which the petitioner's application was rejected was that in respect of Survey No.44 in which the petitioner's plot is also situate, L.G.C.No.29/06 filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, against M/s. Matrusri Co-operative Housing Society is pending before the Special Court constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of Order, dated 16.11.2007, in W.P.No.12861 of 2007 of this Court, wherein after referring to the common order, dated 23.03.2007, in W.P.No.3973 of 2007 and batch passed by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held as under: "Having regard to the fact that no injunction is subsisting against the petitioner or the society from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, I do not see any jurisdiction for respondent No.1 to reject the building permission merely for the reason that a land grabbing case is pending in respect of the land of which the

petitioner's land forms part. In the event the LGC goes against the petitioner and the society, it is always open to the State to recover the property."

Mr.Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent No.5, has fairly conceded that following the aforementioned order, this Court has allowed similar Writ Petitions.

In the light of the above noted facts, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of Order, dated 16.11.2007, in W.P.No.12861 of 2007, with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.47380 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 13th November, 2015 LUR