MADDURI NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.02279/ZC/TPS/LBNZ/GHMC/2019-20 dt.5/9/2020 granting permission to the 5th respondent for construction of ground plus five floors over the plot in Sy.No.20(P) situated at Yellareddyguda, Kapra, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in Permit No.2/C1/02270/2019 in File No.2/C1/23640/2018 dt.7/2/2019 which is against the building rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.168 (MA&UD) dt.7/4/2012, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the building permission granted to the 5th respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Adhi Venkateshwar Rao, submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 2420 square yards in Survey No.39 which is adjacent to the plot of the 5th respondent in Survey No.20. He submits that while converting the land, he owned, into plots, a 30 feet way which is approaching road to the 5th respondent house plot was made. It is submitted that the land in Survey No.39 as well as Survey No.20 was made into house plots without any approved layout and that subsequently, the purchasers/individuals are getting regularisation from the Government by paying the requisite fees. Accordingly, the 5th respondent also got his open plot regularised and thereafter, he approached the municipal authorities for getting construction permission by paying the requisite fee. According to the petitioner, the municipal authorities, without verifying the site physically, and only relying upon the documents submitted by the 5th respondent, have issued the construction Permit No.2/C1/02270/2019 dt.7/2/2019 and in accordance therewith, the 5th respondent has proceeded to dig pits for laying pillars and making the construction. According to the petitioner, the road which is to lead to the plots behind the subject site, has been blocked by the 5th respondent and by misrepresentation, respondent No.5 has obtained building permission and with the prayer to cancel the same, the petitioner made an application under Sec. 450 of the GHMC Act to GHMC. It is submitted that when the authorities did not take any action, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.4990 of 2020 and by order dt.19/5/2020, this Hon'ble Court had directed respondents 2 and 3 to examine the representation of the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is submitted by the petitioner that in spite of the specific direction of this Court, no physical verification was made by the official respondents and the objections of the petitioner were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.2491 of 2021 for non-compliance of the orders and thereafter the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition and has filed the present petition challenging the impugned proceedings dt.5/9/2020. According to the petitioner, under G.O.Ms.No.168, for granting permission for construction of ground plus five floors, the basic requirement of minimum abutting existing road width should be 9 metres or 30 feet and the permission granted to the 5th respondent is in violation of the said requirement. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the official respondents have passed the impugned order dt.5/9/2020 without any application of mind and without making physical verification as required by the order of this Court in W.P.No.4990 of 2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the contentions raised in the affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court to page 82 of the paper book and demonstrated that he is the owner of the adjacent land in Survey No.39/UU of Kapra Village, Keesara Division, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Therefore, according to him, the official respondents have not followed the directions of this Court in its letter and spirit and have rejected the application of the petitioner without application of mind.