THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6213 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s property in survey No.125/A1/2 to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, without giving any notice, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, at admission stage.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, he had purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in survey No.125/A1/2 from its previous owner viz., Smt Ghazala Praveen Shareef, on 09.01.2024; that subsequent to the purchase of the said land, the same has also been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records; and that the petitioner has been issued with pattadar pass book by the government with Khata No.60935.

4. Petitioner further contends that while he was undertaking certain repair works by bringing material to the dwelling house situated in the said land, on 27.02.2024 the 2^nd respondent-authority sought to interfere with the said repair work undertaken by the petitioner without issuing any notice or without mentioning any reason for such interference.

5. Petitioner further contends that the land whereat dwelling house is situated being an agricultural land, no permission is required in terms of G.O.Ms.No.67, dt.26.02.2002, being a farm building.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent submits that the petitioner by his own averments in the writ affidavit, had admitted to the fact of undertaking repair works and as per the provisions of Section 174 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’), when reconstruction or addition or alteration work is taken up, prior permission or approval from the respondents-authorities is required to be obtained, and since, the petitioner did not obtain any approval or permission, the respondents-authorities have directed the petitioner to undertake such repair work only after obtaining permission as required under the provisions of the Act.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the event the petitioner proceeds with the alteration/addition without obtaining permission or approval, the authorities would take further action by following due process of law.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the agricultural land along with a dwelling house therein, the recitals of the sale deed, under which the petitioner had purchased the subject property, indicate that what all was purchased by the petitioner is only an agricultural land and there is no mention of existence of any structure therein.

10. Further, since the petitioner by his own averments in the affidavit has admitted to the fact of his undertaking renovation work to the building, which admittedly, requires prior approval/permission from the authorities in terms of Section 174 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the action of the 2nd respondent-authority in directing the petitioner to obtain permission in terms of the Act before undertaking construction/renovation work in the subject property, cannot be found fault with.

11. However, it is to be noted that in the event the petitioner proceeds with the construction/alteration/addition without obtaining any permission, the respondents-authorities are required to follow due process of law, by issuing notice to the petitioner, calling for an explanation and thereafter pass an order, holding th