Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 48374
[ 3166 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 3587 OF 2024
Between:
AND
L. Srinivas Reddy, S/o, L. Ram Chandra Reddy,. Aged. about 46 years, Occ:
Business, R/o. H. No.7-52, JSN Colony, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad,
TS.
...PETITIONER
1. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secr.g1qry.1g Government,
M un icipal Ad m in istiation a nd U r6an Development (MAU D). D-epartment'
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat' Hyderabad, TS.
2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration (CDMA)' Sta.te- -o!
- Telangana, 640, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Opp. PTI Building' Hyderabad-S0O
004, TS
3. Peezadiquda Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner,
Peerzadi!uda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS.
4. B. Eshwar Reddy, S/o. B. Srinivas Reddy, Aged abo-!rt.41 years,.Occ.
Business, R/o. F[. No. 6-2119, Sai lshwarya Colony, Parvathapur Village,
Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TS.
...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 any writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of
Writ of Certiorari, io call for Records pertaining to the ilbgal and impugned
proceedings of the 3rd respondent, i.e. The commissioner, Peerzadiguda
ivlunicipal -Corporation vide Proc. No. PMC/248212023, dated: 20.12.2023.
wherein 3rd respondent passed the illegal and impugned order, without giving
any sort of notice or opportunity to the petitioner, and passed the present il'legal
& impugned order, at the behest of 4th unofficial Respondent, and moreso,
despite -several disputes are pending pertaining to title, in respect of House
Oeaiing No. 7-6't114, Plot No. E-211, admeasuring of 320 Sq. Yards, in Sy' No's'
12, 1i, 19,20 & 21, situated at Salarjung Kancha Village, Parvathapur Gram
Panchayat, then Ghatkesar Mandal (now Medipally Mandal), Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, and the said illegal action of 3rd Respondent is assailed as illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, highhanded and violative of principals of natural justice, and it's
nothing but misuse of their official powers, and also pecuniary advantage by
abusing their positions as public servants, and violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 &
300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also its to contrary provisions laid down in the
Municipal Act and its Rules, and consequently quash thereon, i.e., impugned
proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide No. PMC1248212023, dated. 20.12.2023.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 15 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
dispense with filing of the Certified Copy of impugned proceedings of the 3rd
respondent, i.e. The Commissioner, Peerzadiguda Municipal Corporation vide
Proc. No. PMC1248212023, dated. 20.12.2023. pending disposal of the Writ
Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 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 respondents herein, forthwith restore the petitioner house
bearing No. 7-61114, Plot No. E-211, admeasuring of 320 Sq. Yards, in Sy. No,s.
Panchayat, then Ghatkesar Mandal (now Medipalty Mandal), Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, by suspending the operation of the impugned order passed by the 3rd
respondent vide Proc. No. PMC/248212023, dated. 20.12.2023, in the interest of
justice, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. DINESH
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B. JAGAN MAOHAV RAO, SC FOR
PEERZADIGUDA MUNICIPAL CORPORAT]ON
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO
The Court made the following: ORDER
12, 13, 19, 20 and 21 , situated at Salarjung Kancha Village, Parvathapur Gram
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
trtRIT PETITION No.3587 OF 2ol24
ORDER
This Writ Petition is frled for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to impugned proceedings of the 3ra respondent dated 20.12.2023 passed without any sort of notice or opportunit5r to the petitioner at the behest of unoflicia-l respondent more so, despite a pending civil litigation in respect of House bearing No.7-61/14, Plot No.E-211, admeasuring 32O square yards in Sy. Nos. 12, 13, 19, 20 and 21 situated at Salarjung Kancha village, Parvthapur Gram Panchayat, previously Ghatkesar Mandal {now Medipally Mandal), Medchal-
- Malkajgiri District, as being illegal, arbitrary, highhanded ard violative of principles of natural justice.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Gov.ernment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2; Sri B.
Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent- No.3, and witrl the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner contends that originally M/s. Sri Ramana Cooperative Society Limited was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac'92 '24 gts in Sy' Nos.12, 13, 19, 2O and 21 situated at Salarjung Kancha village, Parvathapur Gram Palchayat, Ranga Reddy District; ald that one Mr. Bharath, S/o M. Satya Narayana, who is a member of the above society got allotted the plot No'E-211, admeasuring 32O square yards in his favour and thereafter the sale deed was executed in his favour uide registered sale deed dated t6.t2.2003.
4. Petitioner further contends that the said Bharath after getting the registered sale deed executed in his favour on 16.12.2003 and becoming tJle absolute owner and possessor had executed a sale deed dated 07.02.2004 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject proBerty to an extent of 32O square yards and since then the petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property'
5. Petitioner further contends that intending to construct a residential house over the subject property, he had approached the Gram Panchayat, Parvathapur and obtained building permission on 08.08.2008 in respect of the subject property which has been granted by the concerned Gram panchayat authorities having satisfied with the title of the petitioner.
6. Petitioner further contends that upon obtaining the building permission, he had made a construction and obtained house number from the concerned authorities and is ditigently paying the property tax to the Gram panchayat Parvathapur previously, and now to Peerzadiguda Municipality, upon the said Gram panchayat being upgraded into Municipa_lity, and as of date no dues are there against the above property.
7. Petitioner further contends that in respect of the said plot of land he has 415e elrained regularization under Layout Regularization Scheme (LRS) introduced by the State Government uide proceedirrgs dated ll.O8.2Ol7 .
8. Petitioner further contends that while the above being tJle factual position, tfre unollicial respondent is claiming ownership of the subject property as having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 3O.08.2O16 from one Mr. P. Sravan Kumar in whose favour it is alleged that a sale executed by Sree Ramala Cooperative Housing Society, on 30.1O.1989 even though the said societ5r had become defunct by then.
9 .
Petitioner further contends that it is only after the S
