Kiran Babu Gujarathi v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 23580 of 2019 ORDER:

In this Writ Petition, petitioner questions rejection letter dated 13.08.2018 rejecting his application for grant of permission for construction of residential building with respect to plot No.152 covered by Survey No.100 situated at Raghavendra Shelters Phase-II, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

The objection mentioned in the impugned rejection letter is as follows:

"Objections (Document(s) Related):

Additional Documents Required

1. The applicant has not submitted the ULC Endorsement along with Sketch plan and GO. Copies with list.

Remarks.

1. As per U.O.Note No.B/159/TPS/HO/GHMC/2018/164, dated 27.03.2018, of the Chief City Planner, HO, GHMC duly enclosing the Govt. Memo No.2322/Plg.II(1)/2018, dt:05.03.2018 has informed that there is ownership dispute over the plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur (V), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District as per the Complaint Petition dt: 16.12.2017 submitted by Sri Abdul Quddus Mulla (NRI) in the Lr. No.CSP/358/2017, dt: 27.12.2017 of the Chief Secretary to Govt., Govt. of Telangana. So, the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone and Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally, Circle 20 are requested not to entertain any Building Permissions / LRS Application / BRS Applications in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur (v), Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, situated at Raghavendra Shelters till the dispute is cleared. Hence, the proposal may be Rejected."

CKR, J W.P.No.23580 of 2019 Learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that there appears to be two layouts with respect to the land in Survey No.100, the one is sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat and the other by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, and it is on account of such confusion, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. As can be seen from the impugned rejection letter, rejection was not on the ground on which the learned Standing Counsel has submitted across the bar.

It is to be noted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.4547 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 25.04.2019 allowed the same by setting aside the rejection letter impugned therein and by issuing a direction to the second respondent therein to reprocess the application of the petitioner therein for building permission in accordance with law.

It is well settled in the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahender Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner1 that the matter has to be judged basing on the contents of the order 1 1978(1) SCC 405

CKR, J W.P.No.23580 of 2019 impugned, but, not on the supplementary or subsequent affidavits.

In that view of the matter, submission of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as such, the impugned rejection letter is unsustainable. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the rejection letter dated 13.08.2018, and the respondents are directed to reprocess the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. It would be open for the respondents that if for any other valid reason, the application of the petitioner could not be considered, then, the same may be communicated to him so as to enable him to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 13th NOVEMBER, 2019.

kvni