SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 29161

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Dilshad Jah – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 33343 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr Kishor Rai
For the Respondents: Mr K.Arvind Kumar

Restrictions on construction violated equality principles as similar structures exist nearby; existing permissions require consideration in security assessments.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ of Mandamus sought to declare the action of the respondent in restricting security clearance for construction as arbitrary and discriminatory - The petitioner holds title to land with supporting documents, NOCs issued are ignored by the respondents citing security concerns - The Court found the restrictions imposed discriminatory, as other buildings nearby exceed the restrictions placed upon the petitioner - The security clearance requirement must be balanced with existing permissions granted and the principle of equality before the law. (Paras 2, 10, 14, 18)

(B) The reliance on prior NOC and permissions by the Gram Panchayat and the Army authorities indicates a breach of equality and fair treatment - The court emphasizes a need for clarity and consistency in administrative actions concerning property rights and local regulations. (Paras 10, 14)

(C) Construction rights on the property based on existing permissions, emphasizing the importance of prior consent and established practices in similar contexts. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land and obtained necessary permissions for constructing residential villas. After construction began, the respondents restricted permission to ground floor only citing security risks despite neighboring buildings being multi-storied. This led the petitioner to approach the court seeking intervention.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the actions of the respondents as arbitrary and directed that the security clearance for ground plus two floors must be considered in accordance with previously issued permissions.

Issues: Whether the restriction on security clearance imposed on the petitioner constitutes discrimination based on existing permissions.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that administrative actions must not violate the principles of fairness and equality, and past permissions hold significant weight in determining construction rights. A clear distinction between military concerns and property rights was established.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, with directions for reconsideration of the construction clearance.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges construction restrictions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent's security concerns need balancing with previous permissions. (Para 10 , 11)
3. court finds discrimination in restricting petitioner to ground floor only. (Para 14 , 15 , 18)

ORDER:

Heard the Senior Designated counsel Mr Kishore Rai, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ direction or order more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in restricting the Security Clearance for construction of residential houses in the property i.e land admeasuring Ac.1.25.75 Guntas in Sy No 90/P situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to Ground floor as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and consequentially, direct the Second Respondent to consider the Security Clearance for construction of the Ground Plus 2 Upper Floors for residential houses in the property i e land admeasuring 1 Acres 25.75 Guntas in Sy No 90/P situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present w rit petition is as under:

a) The petitioner is the absolute ow ner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.25.75 guntas in Survey No.90/ P situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same by and under registered deed of sale deed dated 02.12.2004 bearing document No.16685 of 2006. The petitioner had executed an agreement of sale cum General Pow er of Attorney w ith possession infavour of Sri B.H.Ravikumar and Syed Shah Mahmood Hussaini vide document dated 05.06.2007 bearing document No.5692 of 2007.

b) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the property ow ned by the petitioners is a patta land and the revenue authority have issued patta to the petitioners vide pattadar passbook No.498765 bearing Patta No.230 and title deed No.498766 issued by the Special Grade Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar Mandal, Rangareddy District had by proceedings No.B/ 5/ 2007, dated 30th March, 2007 mutated the name of the petitioner in pursuance of the sale deed and the petitioner to develop the property ow ned by the petitioner had applied to the Grampanchayat, Bandlaguda, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and obtained sanction for construction of 17 Duplex Villas vide permission dated 05.01.2011. The petitioner before purchase of the property inspected the No objection Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent to the vendor of the petitioner, w hereunder the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 29.05.2006 reported no objection for construction of residential houses in the property covered by SurveyNo.90 (part) of Bandlaguda Village, subject to the condition that the building shall be constructed in accordance w ith approved plan.

c) It is further the case of the petitioner, that w hile the construction is in progress, the officials of the 2nd respondent had in first w eek of January, 2013 come over to the site and requested for the building permission w hich w as already displayed over the site but still the petitioner had furnished a copy of the sanctioned plan to the officials of the 2nd respondent in January, 2013 itself on 18.01.2013 the officials of the2nd respondent once again came to the site and called upon the petitioner to obtain no objection from the 2nd respondent for construction over the property belonging to the petitioner though the petitioner had show n the no objection certificate already issued to the vendors of the petitioner still the 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to obtain NOC in the name of the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top