High Court for State of TelanganaWP/14001/2015dismissed no costs

K.Kaladhar, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

2016-01-19C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14001 of 2015 Date:19.01.2016 Between:

K.Kaladhar, S/o Shankaraiah and two others.

..... Petitioners And:

State of Telangana, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and four others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Rama Mohan Palanki Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Admn. (TS) Counsel for Respondent No.3: Smt G.Neeraja Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Mr. V.Balaram The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not initiating action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for constructing building on public pathway in Survey No.600 of Gajwel, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. In their affidavit, the petitioners have inter alia averred that on being approached by them, respondent No.2 has informed that respondent No.5 was given permission for construction of building.

In spite of the above plea, the petitioners have not chosen to question the building permission granted to respondent No.5 and instead, a generic relief is sought in the Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not initiating action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for construction of building on public pathway as illegal and arbitrary. When respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been constructing building in pursuance of the sanctioned plan, no Mandamus can be issued for taking action against such construction. Unless the petitioners avail appropriate remedy for questioning the sanctioned plan and succeed in such proceeding, the right of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan cannot be interdicted or impaired.

In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedy if they feel aggrieved by grant of building permission to respondent No.5.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 14.5.2015, is vacated and WPMP.No.18344 of 2015 and WVMP.No.2065 of 2015 are dismissed as infructuous.

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 19th January, 2016 DR