Telangana High Court
Althuru Ravi Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.8879 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents No.2 to 4 on the complaint/representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner, dt.29.01.2024, against the illegal structures of 4 floors raised by the unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 in the land admeasuring 150 sq. yards each situated at H.No.1-10-334, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Secunderabad, in contravention of the building permission without leaving any setbacks, as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
2
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the unofficial respondents have commenced construction of building consisting of four floors without obtaining any permission/sanction from the respondents-authorities; and that he had submitted a representation, dt.29.01.2024, to the respondents-authorities bringing to their notice of the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal construction being made, and sought for initiation of action.
5. Petitioner further contends that in spite of more than two months having passed by, no action is taken on the representation submitted him, while the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the unauthorized and illegal construction unabatedly.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 has placed before this Court written instructions along with the copy of proceedings that have been initiated by the authorities against the unauthorized and illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondents. The same is taken on record.
7. By the written instructions, it is stated that the unofficial respondents having obtained building permission for their respective portions in the premises bearing H.No.1-10-334, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Secunderabad, proceeded with the construction in deviation of the sanction plan; that the respondents-authorities on 3 noticing the aforesaid construction being made in deviation of the sanction plan, have initiated action by issuing show-cause notice to the unofficial respondents on 23.01.2024; and that as no explanation/reply was filed, the authorities have passed Speaking Orders on 05.03.2024.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of the aforesaid written instructions further submits that the unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 on being served with the Speaking Orders whereby the construction being made by them was held to be unauthorized and illegal construction, have approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing separate suits vide OS.Nos.27, 31 and 32 of 2024 and obtained status quo order, dt.23.02.2024 in IA.No.243 of 2024 in OS.No.27 of 2024, and injunction orders dt.13.03.2024 in IA.No.265 of 2024 in OS.No.32 of 2024, and dt.07.03.2024 in IA.No.1425 of 2024 in OS.No.31 of 2024, respectively.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that due to the aforesaid orders of injunction and status quo granted by the Court of Civil jurisdiction, the respondent-authorities are unable to proceed with the enforcement of the speaking orders, dt.05.03.2024.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondent-authorities are taking steps to get the aforesaid interim 4 orders vacated by filing their written statement/counters for the concerned Civil Court.
11. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel submits that on the aforesaid orders of injunction/status quo getting vacated, the authorities would take further action in the matter for enforcement of the Speaking Orders, whereby the construction being made by the unofficial respondents has already been held to be unauthorized and illegal construction and more so, the permissions for such constructions having been obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Since, the respondents-authorities have initiated action against the unauthorized and illegal construction being complained of by the petitioner, even before the petitioner approaching the said authority, by issuing a show-cause notice, dt.23.01.2024, and thereafter passing a Speaking Order, dt.05.03.2024, holding the said construction to be unauthorized and illegal, this Court is of the view that there has been no inaction on the part of the respondents- authorities.
14. However, it is to be noted that against the aforesaid Speaking Order passed by the official respondents, the unofficial respondents having approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and obtained order of status quo/injunction by filing separate suits, the respondents- 5 authorities were prevented from taking steps for enforcement of the aforesaid Speaking Order.
15. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated to this Court that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to get the aforesaid orders of status quo and injunction vacated, it is to be noted that the impugned order being an order passed by the authorities in exercise of their powers under the Act, in discharge of their statutory functions, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the Courts granting order of status quo/injunction against the orders passed under the statute, particularly dealing with unauthorized and illegal construction being interfered by passing an order of status quo, in the case of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v/s. Philomena Education Foundation 1, and the said judgment is reiterated by the High Court by issuing Office Order, vide Circular dt.20.02.2017 in ROC.No.7/ Reg.Judl/2017, which was yet again reiterated in Circular dt.08.11.2023 in ROC.No.14/Reg.Judl/2023, whereby Civil Courts were directed to exercise caution while granting order of status quo.
16. Since, position of law has already been laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and as has been brought to the notice of the Judicial Officers by the High Court by issuing circulars, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities should be 1 2008 (2) ALD 1 6 directed to take steps by filing counters and vacate petitions in the aforesaid suits instituted by the unofficial respondents against the Speaking Order dt.05.03.2024 and take steps to get the said status quo and injunction orders vacated and thereafter take steps to enforce the Speaking Order dt.05.03.2024, in an expeditious manner.
17. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 08th April, 2024.
gra