Tanikonda Hymavathi v. The State Of Telangana
[3168 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRr JUQTTCE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 33618 OF 2024 Between:
TANIKONDA HYMAVATHI, W/o Tankikonda Murali Krishna, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Occ House Hold, Resident of H. No. 7- 4613418, Chinthakuntai Village. Kothapally IVlandal, Karimnagar District.
.....PETITIONER AND
1. The State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad500022.
2. Shathavahana Urban Development Authority, Karimnagar. PIN- 505001 .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not considering the application of the writ petitioner made for grant of building permission for construction of residential house, over her two residential open plots, as the same is not within the cutoff date of Layout Regularization Scheme, 2020 as per G. O. Ms. No.
131 dated 31-08- 2020, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein, to grant building permission for construction of residential house in the writ petitioners two open residential plots admeasuring 177 . 11 square yards and 153. 88 square yards respectively both situated in Sy. No. 109/E of Chinthakunta Village Et G. P.
=7 Authority, by collecting necessary Penalization charges, compounding fee and open space contribution charges as per the norms stipulated in Memo No. 1414BlPLGllll2020 dated 30- 12- 2020, issued bythe respondent and in the light of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 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 herein to grant building permission for construction of residential building over the writ petitioners two open residential plots admeasuring 177.11 square yards and 153.68 square yards respectively both situated in Sy. No. 109/E of Chinthakunta Village and G.p.
, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar district and within the zone of Sathavahana Urban Development Authority pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SURENDRA DESAI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: A GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMIN|STRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.33618 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER:
i Heard Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission for construction of residential house over her two residential open plots, as illegal.
3. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of open plots admeasuring 17L.Il sq.yds. and 153.88 sq.yds., both situated in Sy.No.tog/E of Chintakunta Village and Grampanchayat, Kothapalli
) -\ Mandal, Karimnagar District, on the strength of a registered Partition Deed bearing document No.5O48 of 2024, dated 23.08.2024. She has made two applications both dated 14.11.2024 with respondent No.2 for grant of building permission. The said applications are not considered by respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner hled the present writ petition.
4.
According to the petitioner, she came to know that the subject plots are part of illegal layout and building permission will not be granted to such plots, unless they are regularized as per Regulari zation Scheme introduced by respondent No. 1 vide G.O.Ms.Nos. 131, dated 3L.O8.2O2O and 135, dated 16.09.2020 and GHMC circular dated 28. 12.2O2O.
5. Whereas, Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on instructions would submit that respondent No.2 has not
-------.7 received any application from the petitioner for grant of building permission. If the petitioner submits application under TG-bPASS, respondent No'2 will consider the same and take action in accordance with law'
6. In the light of the said submission' this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit application under TG-bPASS portal with respondent No'2 along with all relevant documents' On filing such application, respondent No'2 shall consider the same' If respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate copy of such order to the petitioner' l There shall be no order as to costs'
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anY, pending in the Wlit P=.ltttoqSh4l cturtd closed.-T. TIR ASSISTANT /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 't.
2.
3.ffiHffi$''dTfl \ ^ b SA MP i*i co dopies '
19.- l
HIGH COURT DATED:2911112024 .f$E srq 3 0 oEC 2U{ (, Z l:1., * f o T
ORDER
WP.No.33618 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.
vPY