THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.725 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr. V.Akash, learned counsel for respondent No.1;
Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department for respondent No.2; and Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022.
3. Respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner had filed the related writ petition alleging that no action was being taken by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and its officials on the representation dated 06.07.2022 to stop unauthorized construction being undertaken by the appellants in the 40 feet road at premises Nos.6-1-126 & 127, 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022 situated at Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad. Respondent No.1 further sought for a direction to GHMC and its officials to stop unauthorized construction being undertaken by the appellants in the aforesaid 40 feet road.
4. It appears that without issuing notice to the appellants who were arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the writ petition, learned Single Judge disposed of the same by directing GHMC to consider the representation dated 06.07.2022 and thereafter to pass appropriate orders within four (04) weeks after giving due notice to the appellants.
5. From the materials on record, we find that Sri K.Ramulu and others including the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had instituted O.S.No.86 of 2005 before the XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, contending that there was a 40 feet wide road which could not have been sold to the defendants. The 40 feet wide road is part of Somasundaram Garden and intended for public use. Appellants herein were defendants in the suit. By the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015, learned trial Judge 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022 came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had failed to establish existence of 40 feet wide road. None of the documents exhibited by the plaintiffs showed existence of such a road as contended by them. On the contrary, there is a 12.9 feet wide common passage in respect of which there is no dispute. During the trial, plaintiffs had complained that defendants were obstructing their way in the common passage. The suit was accordingly decreed with the direction that the passage shown in the suit schedule property is the public passage having 12.9 feet width. Defendants were directed not to obstruct the plaintiffs from using the common passage. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 both appellants and respondent No.1/writ petitioner have filed appeals. Insofar the appellants are concerned, they have filed CCCA.No.190 of 2015 before this Court as against CCCA.No.115 of 2015 filed by 1st respondent/writ petitioner. The two appeals are pending before this Court without any stay.
6. In spite of the above, respondent No.1/writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.07.2022 4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022 before the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, North Zone, Secunderabad, alleging that appellants had applied for construction in the 40 feet road and such permission was granted by the GHMC. He therefore requested the GHMC to stop the appellants from making any construction on the 40 feet road. Alleging that there was inaction on the part of the GHMC authorities in considering his representation dated 06.07.2022, the related writ petition came to be filed.
7. We are of the view that filing of the writ petition was not only misconceived but was a mischievous act on the part of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. There is already a decree from the civil Court that instead of 40 feet wide road there exist a road of only 12.9 feet width. This is of course the subject matter of consideration before this Court in appeal filed by both the parties. In such circumstances, 1st respondent/writ petitioner could not have filed the representation dated 06.07.2022 before the GHMC for withdrawal of building permission granted to the appellants allegedly over the non-existent 40 feet wide road and thereafter to approach this Court for a direction to the GHMC 5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022 to consider such representation. In our considered view, this is clearly untenable, factually as well as legally.
8. That being the position, question of considering the representation of respondent No.1/writ petitioner dated 06.07.2022 does not arise.
9. Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022 is set aside. Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 07.11.2022 KL