Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Country Side Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9797 of 2020
Decided On : 16-07-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 447, 427, 341 and 34 - Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 53, 92, 97 and 144 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994 - Section 3 -Layout Rules - Rule 3, 5 and 11 - Regularization Rules - Rule 2 - Legal and Valid - Illegal Road - Concerned Authority - Learned counsel for the petitioner company, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents learned standing counsel appearing for 6th respondent learned standing counsel appearing for respondents learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for 7th respondent learned counsel appearing for respondent and Learned counsel who initially claimed to be on caveat for Respondent No. 11 when matter came up for admission claiming to be appearing for the person named in reference impugned order without entering any appearance and having filed a separate writ petition claiming to be one of plot owner -
Finding of the Court:
Order to ensure Rule of law is maintained, while censuring action of such authority, directs that higher authority to take necessary action by initiating disciplinary action or other calling for explanation and reprimanding - Present case aberration is by highest executive authority of the district administration itself bestowed with power to ensure Rule of law is maintained court deems it appropriate to protect interest of petitioner by granting liberty to approach appropriate forum to avail remedies in accordance with law in the event of the personal life and liberty of members/directors of petitioner having been affected as a result of actions of the respondent authorities on basis of impugned order, to seek redressal there against including compensation -
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
The legal document discusses the legal principles governing administrative and quasi-judicial powers, emphasizing the thin line that separates them and the importance of acting fairly and justly in exercising such powers. It highlights that any administrative action with civil consequences must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness.
The case primarily concerns the validity of actions taken by authorities in relation to land development, layout approval, and road vesting issues. The petitioner claims ownership of land in Survey Nos. 98 and 99, which was originally agricultural land converted for non-agricultural use. The petitioner had obtained a draft layout sanction from the relevant authority, but due to the area being brought under the jurisdiction of HMDA, the draft sanction was considered closed, and no final layout permission was issued.
The authorities relied on the draft layout to assert that roads shown therein vested with the Gram Panchayat and are public roads, thereby justifying actions such as removal of obstructions and laying of roads by the authorities. However, the petitioner contends that no final layout permission was granted, and the draft sanction alone does not confer ownership or vesting rights over the roads.
The authorities, on the other hand, argue that the roads vested with the Gram Panchayat either through statutory rules or due to the petitioner’s failure to execute necessary deeds, and that they acted within their powers to remove obstructions and regulate land use. They also claim that the petitioner has sold a significant portion of the land and thus does not have absolute ownership over the entire extent claimed.
The court found that the impugned actions lacked adherence to natural justice principles, as the authorities did not provide proper notice or opportunity to the petitioner before issuing directives that affected their rights. The actions were deemed to be motivated by ulterior motives, and the order was set aside. The court emphasized that any further action should follow due process, including proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The court also acknowledged that the highest district authority was responsible for ensuring rule of law, and its failure to follow fair procedures was a serious procedural lapse.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and granted liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings afresh, following due process, to address the land and road issues. The court underscored the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to legal procedures in administrative actions affecting civil rights, especially when fundamental rights and property interests are involved.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 2nd respondent-District Collector (PW) Ranga Reddy, in issuing the impugned Memo No. 4505/2019/B1/Pts/1, dated 02.06.2020 directing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to remove the obstructions in the DTCP LP No. 2306/2007/29-2008/H under Sections 53 and 144 of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and give compliance report to his office by 10.06.2020 without fail, as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner company under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the said memo, with a consequential directions to (i) the respondents 1 to 5 to return/restore the land belonging to the petitioner in Survey Nos. 98 and 99 situated at Mokila Village, Sankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on which respondents 2, 4 and 5 illegally laid road in Mokila Village as it was prior to laying of the said road on 06.06.2020; (ii) the respondents 2 to 11 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land and (iii) take necessary action against the respondents 2 to 11 for abusing their power and for depriving the petitioner of its property by laying illegal road over the same.
2. The above case is taken up for hearing today i.e. 16.07.2020, through Video Conferencing.
3. Heard Sri. L. Ravi Chander, learned senior counsel representing Sri. Sarang Afzulpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner company, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9, Sri. Y. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for 6th respondent-HMDA, Sri. G. Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 10, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for 7th respondent, Sri. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for 11th respondent and Sri. A. Purusotham Reddy, learned counsel who initially claimed to be on caveat for Respondent No. 11 when the matter came up for admission on 06.07.2020 (though no caveat is placed on record), thereafter claiming to be appearing for the person named in reference no. 6 of the impugned order without entering any appearance, and having filed a separate writ petition W.P. No. 8380 of 2020 claiming to be one of the plot owner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner company that the petitioner has purchased total land admeasuring Ac. 19.09 guntas in Survey Nos. 98 and 99 (i.e. Ac. 3.08 guntas in Survey No. 98 and entire extent of land of Ac. 16.01 guntas in Survey No. 99) from the year 1999 onwards till about 2006. It is claimed by the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner obtained conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture in February, 2007 and thereafter decided to develop a layout by converting the said land into plots and sought an approval from the 3rd respondent authority-Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Hyderabad by submitting the draft plan, upon which the said authority had issued a draft technical layout pattern approval on 12.03.2008. However, in the meantime, the entire area of Mokila of Shankerpally Gram Panchayat has been brought under the control of HUDA now renamed as HMDA (6th respondent herein) to bring about a regulated development in the area covered by the jurisdiction of the said authority. Upon the said area of Mokila being brought under the jurisdiction of HMDA authorities, the 3rd respondent was directed not to sanction any layouts and the layouts for which sanctions were granted earlier were required to approach HMDA authorities for rectification within the time permitted. However, it is claimed that the petitioner did not approach the HMDA authorities seeking rectification of layout for which the petitioner obtained a draft technical layout pattern sanction in March 2008 and thus the said layout permission obtained stoo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
