Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1199
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Polepally Narotham Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.23388 and 11283 of 2020
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court reiterates the necessity of conducting a proper inquiry when allegations of misrepresentation arise, ensuring parties are heard before administrative actions are taken. (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
Two writ petitions filed concerning property disputes involving allegations of misrepresentation in building permissions. The petitioner claims ownership and challenges the legitimacy of the documents presented by the respondent. The court found that the respondent failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The endorsement rejecting the petitioner's objections was set aside due to lack of adherence to principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted for a de novo inquiry to be conducted by the Municipal Corporation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the building permission granted to the respondent was based on correct representations and whether the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to present his case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the endorsement lacked consideration of evidence regarding alleged inaccuracies in the respondent's title documents and mandated a new inquiry process to rectify the oversight.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for a de novo inquiry.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Party In Person
For the Respondent: GP For MCPL Admn Urban Dev TG
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over property ownership and boundary (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner asserts ownership of property and challenges validity of respondent's documents. (Para 6) |
| 3. court's directive for de novo enquiry and maintenance of status quo (Para 7 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. respondent argues that title disputes are outside the purview of administrative review. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. requirement for accurate enquiry and adherence to natural justice (Para 10 , 14) |
| 6. court emphasizes adherence to natural justice principles in the inquiry process. (Para 11) |
| 7. final order issued for de novo inquiry with directions. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Since these two writ petitions relate to the dispute concerning the same property and the parties are common, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P. No.23388 of 2020:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, in issuing the endorsement in RoC.No.HO/G1/E-100375/2019-20 dated 08.12.2020 rejecting his application dated 03.06.2020 filed for cancellation of building permission issued to respondent No.5 vide permit No.3006/13465/W49/2018 dated 15.11.2018 for construction of building in the land in Survey Nos.573 and 581 situated at Waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District, without conducting any hearing and without recording valid reasons, as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Mr. P. Narotham Reddy, petitioner - Party-In-Person, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Mirza Saifullah Baig, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4, and Mr. Mummineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner - Party-In-Person, submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plots admeasuring 783 square yards and 300 square yards, total admeasuring 1083 square yards in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581/2(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.8143 of 2011 dated 11.11.2011 and 8589 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011 from the previous owner Mr. Kasubojula Sambaiah S/o. Rajaiah.
4. It is submitted that originally, Mr. Pingili Ranadheer Reddy S/o. Vijaypal Reddy was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Survey No.573 and 581(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, which is his ancestral property. That one Mrs. Anumula Kommala had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-36 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new) from Mr. P. Ranadheer Reddy; the father of vendor of the petitioner, Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas from Mrs. Anumula Kommala under simple sale deed dated 14.08.1980. Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah executed registered will deed bearing document No.1 of 2006 dated 21.03.2006 in favour of his son, Mr. K. Sambaiah. Thereby, Mr. Kasabojula Sambaiah became absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new). When there was interference by respondent Nos.2 and 4 with the land in Survey No.573 (old) 581/2 (new) for the purpose of laying road, Mr. K. Sambaiah filed W.P. No.28753 of 2008, which is disposed of, by the order dated 29.12.2008 directing respondents therein not to interfere with the said land without following due process of law. It is submitted that subsequently respondent Nos.2 and 4 conducted field enquiry and confirmed that there is no master plan and proposal for laying of the road in the said land.
5. It is submitted that having verified the title, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1083 square yards under aforesaid two (2) sale deeds from Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 having obtained sale deed bearing document No. 7758 of 2004 dated
