Back
TBHIGH COURT FOR THE oF TELANGANA Ar_ HYDEsrgrE (Dpeciat Original Jurisdiction)
MoI.?lYrTHE FOURTEENTH TWo THo UsAND AND rwirD ,A riY v
6O rF !
JUN"E.
r"'
rHE HoNouRor.. .fiTi3iiu"L A.ABHTsHEK REDDy Between:
WRITPETITION NO:5 02 0F 2021 "'*,ll'il,?i f ffitr$iili | l,3o "fi , N,[ i."#.:,8g,i3,,! i u %,!i " R!3,i, ,ii2[??
'E,lS,iTg:X,T*tifi ,*i,lry,fll#;$S'?[x,?,i8""Xi,6fr%j;*,,?i,fl xanga Reddy, Hyde lixiii3;?jj,";
AND ...PET!T|oNERS .
1 The State of Telanoi + H 3 $f ff ,?dx..,: l u:rl al tl es rH* vli dt eli rj at bH ad: rvR lu:, niT ic: iF pai: i df of i# i6, ii l? u. i i6{ I: ] i?ti ns im irn on ,s, ra, o n Hyderabad.
3. , ST eh ce u Z no dn ea ral bC ao dm Zm ois ns ei ,o n He vr, oG er ie aa dte ir i iH oy iid ie ;;r .a "b "a -d " M' unicipal Corporation, 4.
5. Trn hee Aue sp su ist tv ln C t o cm itvm i ps ts aio nn ne er r, , ,G _H rvM rcC cC ii ir ic il "e No.2g, SSe ;c ;u ;n ;d ;e ;;ra ;bba id l:, HHy fd fe ir ;a ;b #a ;d.
6. r6i;;;;;'"
The Disrrict Coleltor, nvoerinio.
^iJ:'d, 7. The Reven ue Divisiona t'offi;;; ijyqd;bA'6irtri.t, retangana. eB. The Tahsildar. Irrlaredpaly uanitaii SeJunJeiunla, t"ru"g"r"il The Slation House o+ice?, Crr iiriigr,i;E. sl SJirno fetanqa na.
10. RanlPratap Singh, S/o. Ganesh Si;gh, ngbd i -l -out " 4, 9;n y; eJ a. r s Occ . Business, Rlo. 7-1-448, Maiuthi Veedhi. SecundeiaUiO.
11. G l\rlanohar Sinoh S/o Gqlg.r singh, Aged a--oout 47 years occ . Business, Rl o. 7 -1 -448, tV5ruthi Veedhi. SecunteraEiJ.
12.1\,4/s. ldeal Associates, Eep by p. Sreedhar. s/o. p. Brahmaiah, Aqed about 52 years Occ . Business. R/o. pl6t No.5, Ramanuja Nagar, W;sley f6;;h"r;-'
Colony, Lalapet. Secunderabad.
13. C. Raju, S/o .Ramulu Aged about 46 years Occ . Business, R/o. C_24, Road No.B, Phase No.1. Fitm Nagar, Jubiter! Hiils, Hyderabad.
*=rro*Oa,urc .
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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the action of the respondents in illegally sanctioning construction permission vide Permit No. 11C2911216712020 dt.0211212020 to unofficial respondents No. 10 to 12 herein inspite of there being a status quo orders and not considering the petitioners representations dated 2310212021 and 2510212021 thereby not taking any action against the unofficial respondents particularly, Respondent Nos.1 0 to 'l 2 as illegal, immoral and in violation of article 3004 and consequently to set aside construction Permit No. 11C2911216712020, dl.02l12l2o21 by directing the official respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to take action against the illegal construction activity at schedule property i.e., house bearing No. '12-8-388/6120 and 20/A on the plot admeasuring 651 Sq.yds. in Sy.No.796/1/5 claiming the same as H.No.12-8-418 to 422 in Sy.No.796/2 admeasuring 704 Sq.Yds., situated at Mettuguda, Secunderabad, being carried out by unofficial Respondents Nos.10 to 1 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 more particularly the respondents Nos.6 and 7, to conduct the
3:'.""%il#5:?Jl,i,'i}::ilI"iff'5"':'',;wJ?',"'iil?l"datMettusudaVilase'
2021 tA No: 2 oF stated in the rh't ih the circumstances tfmmmluu IANO:3 OF 2021 Between:
gfg;.,;;tu*,fH,t.l , bor,lnv, LalaPet t"tOno
1' . M iil/ is o. r A .'n i 6a n tr-a i I .n f Pra ts ot tr u rc utu o r 2e' 0 R 2'e P tv. l' a b py le i ls lo^ wlla nn ' a trti;s Jr?fi :"; r: l"RTll3r'"r".:!Xl occ , Reddv, s/o V' Naravana Reddv' Ased about 45 vears' '
8'n:?HSflrouenkata Business.R/ovrrra'fril'20'i;M;pi;r'own'e-ancitbgtldajagir'Rajendranagar'
Hyderabad.
nanga neOOV, PETITIONERS ...RES'ONDENTSMRIT
3. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal SqqreJaryr Municipal Administration a nd U rban oeverop'rieii, b6reiariat Buil Ndi / un ng is c' i pH iiv Cd oe rr pa ob ra ad ti' on, LowerTankbund'
4. The Commir.ion"r."i?"'jtE;r]y;;;;;.d t iilsels:Sl"ommissioner, GHMC' s-ecunderabad Zone' Hvdera'bad District'
6. The Deputv co..itiiJ"n"icrirrllb Circte No 2g Secunderabad' T The Assistant citv iir"ainJi, GHMc-cii'i" No 29' secunderabad b. in" oislrict co-lDleiubitsoior,n H aiv 'od fe fir ca eb r,a d, Telangana.
;. iii; n;;;ir; Hvderabad District' Telangana'
ib. tii" rJniiron, Mareo patli Mandal'- secund^erabad'
i 1'
-i 2. .i Cti . " R s ajL ui ,i " Sn lo .n nb au mt"
u i6 -u# ,i i A"t g,'C ;Oh -i att o< oa uis t?y O^o a y gP q'S lt' ^9S9-e"c uBnduesrianbeasds'' FJo C-24' Road Nb.al'Fhi." r.ro.r.iirm ftigar, Jubile6 Hills' Hvderabadspondents/
Respondents Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe a inf tf eid ra imv it o f ri dle ed rs i n g rs au np tep do r Ot V" i i f.i |n ir-" f iop n"t i Oti" f"" , b't oh ue r, t H oi ng h 0 5_C .0o 3u .r 2t 0m 21a y i nb We Ppl .e Na os .5e 5d 0 t 2o / 2v 0a 2c 1ate the Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT B'RACHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respon;;;i N;'i ep rOn MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND '
URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 to 5 : SRITCHAT.LA B.t:#.t Counsel for the Respondent Nos'6 to 8 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'9 : GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe ResponJent Nos'10 to 12: SRI G'VASANTHA RAYUDU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI..IUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITIONNo.5 5O2 of 2O2l "/-
['B RACHNA', 'GP', 'CHATLA MADHU', 'GP', 'GP', 'G VASANTHA RAYUDU']
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to set aside the construction permit No. I lC29 I 12162 /2O2O, dated 02.12.2O2O granted in favour of respondent Nos. 10 to 12 and to direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to take action against the illegal construction activity being carried out by respondent Nos. 10 to 13 at scheduie property i.e. house bearing No. 12-8-388 /6120 e' 20lA on the piot admeasuring 651 square yards in Sy. No' 7961 I 15 claiming the same as H. No. l2-8-4LB to 422 in Sy' No' 79612' admeasuring 704 square yards, situated at Mettuguda'
Secunderabad.
in brief is that the petitioner The case of the petitioners, No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Nos. i2-8-388 l6l20 e 20lA, admeasuring 651 sq'yds' in Sy' No'
having purchased
796lll5, situated at Mettuguda' Secunderabad the same under three registered sale deeds vide document Nos' 3526 of 2Ol7;898 of 2018; and 897 of 2018' In order to make the subject property' the petitioners applied to constructions .over GHMC seeking building permission vide File No' 21C29 114987 I the officials of GHMC have issued a
2018 and on inspection'
shortfali notice to the petitioners While so' the respondent Nos' 10 to 13, along with the police officials and revenue officials' tried to with the possession of the petitioner No' 1 over the subject interfere it property claiming the subject land as their land by misidentifying asH.No.12-8-418lo422inSy'No'79612'admeasuringT04 there was inter se to the petitioners' yards' According square Nos lO & 11 and the respondent No'
dislx+le between respondent /u/'\
w.P No 5bu2 or to 422 \o SY' No'
i e'H' No. 12-8-418
13 in resPect of the ProPertY the suit suit were filed; and ultimatelY'
a suit and counter
79612;
in their favour'
& 1 was decreed Nos 10 1 filed bY resPondent by them, when the under the guise of the decree obtained However, of Nos' 10 and 11 tried to interfere with the Possession respondent in respect of the subject Property'
of the petitioners the vendors to 422 in SY' No. 796i 2, the wronglY ciaiming it as H' No 12-8-418 vendors of the petitioners' had filed two suits' namely O'S Nos. 535 Nos' 10 and 13 herein for and 536 of 20i6 against the respondent perpetual injunction on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge' City Civil Court at Secunderabad and the trial Court' after hearing both sides and considering the documents of both the parties, had allowed the I.A. No.344 of 2016 in O'S' No' 535 of 2016 and I A' No' 345 of 2016 in O.S. No. 536 of 2016 on 16'07'201'8 and 27'07'2OlB respectively, grating ad inteim injunction against respondent Nos' 10 and 13 by restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject 1and, which is the schedule of property in both the suits.
While so, in violation of the interim injunction orders passed by the trial Court, on 24.04.2079, the police officials and the revenue offic.ials had visited the subject property and threatened the petitioners and their vendors to vacate the subject 1and, which prompted the vendors of the petitioners to approach this Court by filing W.P. No. 9822 of 2019. However, on 12.06.2019, at the instance of unofficial respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 13, some anti- social elements came to the subject property; forcefully dispossessed the petitioners; destroyed the compound wall/blue sheets fencing; and damaged the CCTV cameras. When the said * #5i/
o ro uuo, incident was brought to the notice of this Cortrt, an order dated
20.06.2Olg, was passed by this Court as under:-
"lt is not open to the revenue and the police authorities to interfere in a matter which was seized of by the competent Civil Court and which was governed by an interim injunction order.
The very act of undertaking a survey in relation to the dispute sought to be raised by the unofficial respondents, who were bound by the interim injunction order, to determine the survey numbers was itself as act of contempt as it interfered with the administration of justice in the light o
