Sri Vigneswara Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3000s OF 2022 Between:
Sri Vigneswara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Registered under Cooperative Societies Act, With Reg. No. T4/486, Rep. by its. President, K.Vidwan Reddy, S/o. Rajireddy, Aged about 81 years, Occ- Social Service, Fl/o. 6/T, Saraswathi Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...PETITIONER AND
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad City- T.S.
2. the Zonal Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-7B, Khairatabad, Hyderabad City-T.S.
3. The Chief City Planner, GHMC, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad City-T.S.
4. M/s. Mahaveer Estate Projects,, A Partnership Firm having its Regd. Office at H.No.8-2-2771811 , Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-s00 034, Rep. by its Partner (1) Sri. SHENISHETTY KRISHNA MURTHY, (2) Sri. KOTHAPALLI BHASKAR RAIMESH KUIUAR ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the INACTION of the Respondents 1to 3 in not considering the Complaint dated-17 -02-2022 and 01-04-2022 about the illegal constructions made on the property in Sy.Nos.136 to 144, particularly Sy.No. 136/,4 and 138/8, in all admeasuring 24,429.50 sq-yards and covered by various alleged Municipal Nos.
13-6-445/1 , 44512, 4451N2, 445141211, 4451413, 445141311, 4451A1312, 445lAl3l3 and 4451A14, out of the said total extent of landed property in all admeasuring Ac.
consequentially to direct the Respondents to prevent the 4th Respondent from making conslruction activity on the above said property. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondents to stop the illegal and high-handed construction on the property in Sy.Nos.'l 36 to 144, particularly Sy.No.136/4 and 138/B, in all admeasuring 24,129.5O sq.yards and covered by various alleged Municipal Nos.13-6-445/1 , 445t2, 445tAt2, 445t4t2t1, 445tP13, 4451A13t1, 445tAt3t2, 445tAt3l3 & 445tAt4, out or the said total extent of landed property in all admeasuring Ac.29-39 guntas at Gudimalkapur, Golconda Mandal, by the 4th Respondent during the pendency of the above Writ Petition, and may pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel forthe Respondents 1 To 3: SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNtCTPALTT|ES) Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 3OOO5 OF 2022 ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of Respondents 1to 3 in considering the complaints dated O7.O2.2O22 and 01.04.2O22 about the illegal constructions made on the property in Survey Nos. 136 to 144 particularly Survey Nos. 136/A and 138/8, in all admeasuring 24,429.50 square yards and covered by various alleged municipal Nos. 1s-6-44s/t, 445/2, 44s/Al2, 44s/Al2lt, 44slAl3, 44slA/3/1,44slAl3/2,44s/A/313 ard 4451A/4 out of the said total extent of landed property admeasuring Acs.29.39 guntas at Gudimalkapur, Golconda Mandal.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu submits that the petitioner has given representations to the respondent Corporation on 07 .O2.2O22 and Ol.O4 .2022 .
about the illegal constructions made on the subject property. He submits that a notice was also issued on O1.O4.2O22 by the petitioner society wherein it is mentioned about the series of litigation which has went up to the Supreme Court and later the same was remanded and after the remand, the suit was dismissed and Appeal is pending before this Court. According
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the matter is subjudice, the official respondents ought not to have granted permission to the unolficial respondent.
3.
Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that permission was granted in favour of the unofficial respondent about four or five months ago. He submits that the respondent Corporation looking at the prima facie title has granted permission in favour of the unofficial respondent. He submits that the petitioner has suffered:l decreed and the Appeal is pending consideration and on that ground the respondent Municipality cannot stop granting permission to the unofficial respondent. 4.
Heard Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
5.
The Writ Petition is filed seeking consideration of the representations of the petitioner. This Court has perused the representation dated Ol .O4 .2022. In the entire representation, except stating about pending litigation, nothing has been stated. Even the argument of the iearned counsel for the petitioner is that because the litigation is pending, the respondent Corporation ought not to have granted permission in favour ol'the unofficial respondent and the representation of the
petitioner should have been taken into consideration. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. In a mechanical manner, whenever a writ petition is filed seeking consideration of the representations, this Court cannot direct the respondents to consider the same. Prima facie, in the representation, except stating about pending litigation, the petitioner has not stated how the respondents are bound to consider the same. Particularly while granting permission, the respondents are only concerned with the pima facie title and having satisfied with the title they have granted permission. Pending litigation cannot be a ground for stalling the entire process.
6.
Hence, this Court finds no reason to direct the official respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner.
7.
The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8.
The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed SD/- N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR w //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad City- T.S.
2. The Zonal Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Circle-7B, Khairatabad, Hyderabad CitY-T.S.
3. The Chief City Planner, GHMC, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad City-T.S.
4. One CC to SRl. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to SRl. SATUPATH PRABHAKAR RAO (SC FRO MUNICIPALITIES), Advocate IOPUCI
6. Two CD Copies.
7. One Spare Copy.
MU
HIGH COURT DATED:2010712022 ^+- s1 ctP $tl ,.(
ORDER
WP.No.30005 of 2022 w---- fi