P.G.Rohini Kumari v. The State Of Telangana
[3168 J HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO:35280 OF 2024 Between:
P.G.Rohini Kumari, Wo B.Vidhyasagar Reddy, Aged about 63 Years, Occ Retd Service, Rl/o H.No.1-7-1l41 , Srinivasnagar colony, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad -500 010 ...pETrroNER AND
1. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
3. The Zonal Cotimissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Kuktpally Zone, Hyderabad.
4. The De6iuty Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Circle -27, Alwal, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 the action of the 3rd Respondent in rejecting the building construction permission vide file No. 013061/ GHMC/ 64211 KPL2|2O23' BP d1.20.12.2023 for construction of residential building in Plot No.l6/1 vide House bearing No.5{9'1i 17l1/'16/'l in survey No.21 part, 576 part and 577 situated at Ganga Avenue, Alwal, Secunderabad- 10 of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Telangana Building Rules 20't2 and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to grant building construction permission in favour of the petitioner in Plot No.'16/1 in survey No.21 part, 576 part and 577 situated at Ganga Avenue, Alwal, Secunderabad- 10.
lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under section 1 5 1 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 official Respondent No.'l to 4 to grant building permission in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.1 6/1 in survey No.21 part, 576 part and s77 situated at Ganga Avenue, Alwal, secunderabad -10, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.JAWAHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3528O OF 2024 ORDER:
Heard Sri K.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 2.
Petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of House bearing No.5-89i/ 17 l1/16 ll, plot No.16/1, admeasuring 410 square yards, ln Survey Nos.21 part, 576 part arrd 577, situated at Ganga Avenue, Old Alwal, Alwal Village and Municipality, Malkajgiri Maldal, Ranga Reddy District, on the strength of registered Sale Deed bearing document No.5238 of 2OO7, dated 14.12.2007. She has submitted an application bearing No.O 1 306 1 / GHMC / 642r / KPL2 / 2O23-BP, dated 20. | 1.2023 seeking permission for construction of house under TSbPASS. Respondent No.3 has issued Shortfall Intimation [,etter, dated 04.12.2023 stating that plot boundaries does not tally with the site plot numbers. According to the petitioner, she has submitted objections along with documents. Without considering the same, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned Rejection Letter in File ./1
KLJ *?_35280_2024 No.O 1 306 1 / GHMC I 642 I / KPL2 / 2023 -BP, dated 20. 12.2023 on the very sarne ground. Challenging the said rejection order, dated 20.12.2023 of respondent No.3, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner obtained regularization proceedings uide proceedings, dated Ol.ll.2O12 with the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation by paying an amount of Rs.2,34,882/- . Now, at the instance of Ganga Avenue Residents Welfare Association, respondent No.3 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner without considering the said regularization proceedings, dated or.rr.20t2.
4.
Whereas, Sri K.Ravi Mahender, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted instructions of Assistant City Planner, Kukatpally Zone, wherein it is stated that the Ganga Avenue Residents Welfare Association has submitted two representations, dated O3.L1.2023 and 13.12.2023 to the Town Planning Oflicer and the Deputy Commissioner, Alwal, Hyderabad respectively, stating that the i '-ar I,
KL,J wp 15280 2024 developer Manohar Rao sold the park area land as parts and details of the property are as under:
Sl.No.
Plot No.
Name of the purchaser Extent of land t6l 1 P.G.Rohini Kumari 4 10 square yards.
t6l2 Mohammed Fasi Ahmed Subhani 186 square yards 16 /2 Part M.Vrjay Kumar 98 square yards eo/A N.Ram Mohan Reddy 678 square yards.
1.
Learned Standing Counsel also produced copy of layout issued by Alwa,l Municipality to show that there is no plot No.61/1 and it is a park area. He also produced copy of notice, dated 12.12.2023, issued to the petitioner and others asking them to submit documents for verification. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Alwal Circle-27, GHMC has passed a speaking order, dated 06 .O9 .2024, directing the petitioner to remove un-authorized construction of ACC Rooms at designated park area of Ganga Avenue Residence Weifare Association. Even then, she has not removed the said construction. It is duty of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to protect the park and open space in terms of
KL,J 15280 2024 G.O.Ms.No.413, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Bl2l Department, dated O3'08' 1992; G.O,Ms.No.229, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 16.O4.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.72, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 2O.O2.20O2. Therefore, the building application submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated 20.12.2023.
5. In the aforesaid proceedings, there is no consideration of regularization proceedings, dated O l'I l'2O 12 and also Memo No.GlA6l1445/2012, dated 30'O8'2012, issued by Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. Petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2,34,8821- towards regularization charges. But, the same was not considered.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that owners bf plot Nos.16/2 Part and 90/A have not obtained regularization proceedings. There is old house in the subject property' The petitioner has been paying property tax to the respondent-Municipality- Even then, at the instance of colony owners, respondent No.3 rejected the \ (
KL,J etp 35280 2024 building application bearing No.Ot3O61 /?HMC/6421 /KPL2/2O23-Bp, dated petitioner.
20.11.2023, submitted by the .
7.
perusal of the record also would revea_l that the petitioner has submitted the said application under TS_ bPASS. Respondent No.3 has to consider the same and also prima facie title of the petitioner. Thereafter, he has power to verify the documents within twenty one (21) days. However, this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Srikrish v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabadr held that the twentSr one (21) days mentioned in Section 7 of the TS-bpASs not mandatory.
Act, 2O2O is directory, but it is Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to revoke the building permit order obtained by respondent No.4 by misrepresentation of facts beyond 2l days.
8'
At the cost of repetition, there is no consideration of aforesaid regularization proceedings, da_ted Ol .l l .2012 and the Merno, dated 3O.Og.2Oi2 by respondent No.3 in the impugned proceedings.
\ t ( I W.P.No. 16456 of 2O2 I
KI-,J wp .15280 2024 9.
In the light of the same, the impugned rejection order, dated 20-11.2023 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to consider the building application bearing No.O 13061 /GHMC/6421 /KpL2/2O23-Bp, dated 20.11.2023, LRS proceedings, dated O1.lI.2OI2 and Memo, dated 30.08.2012 of the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and pass appropriate orders by putting the petitioner and Ganga Avenue Residence Welfare Association on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit all the documents to respondent No.3 within one week from today.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD //TRUE COPYII ASS]STANT REG TRAR sEcfloN SfHCSn
1. The PrincipalPgcre!1ry, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
Z. ffre-Cgmmisiionei Creit""iftyOerabaO Municipat Corporation (GHMC) Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad i
3. The Zonar commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation (GHIt4c) Kuktpally Zone, Hyderabad.
+. IIg-Pqp,{y Commis-sioner, c reater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Circle -27 , Alwal, Secunderabad To \
5. One CC to SRI K.JAWAHAR, Advocate. [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State ofTelangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
7. One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC IOPUC]
8. Two CD Copies PSK.u t t i
HIGH COURT DATED:1611212024 la1 H€. S 14 ,l( (
ORDER
(j4 r t ) WP.No.35280 of 2024 (J 31 05C 2t24 * t>'tspr.rr;*rl ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ &q 'l