Telangana High Court
Koukuntla Anjamma vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16898 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner of Plot/House bearing No.1-7-153/3/C and 1-7-157/4/A situated at Kotha Cheruvu, Mahabubnagar Town; that the petitioner had obtained building permission for construction of a residential building/apartment consisting of stilt + five upper floors, vide permission dt.07.12.2022; that the aforesaid building permission is in vogue; and that the respondents- authorities, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are interfering with the construction that is undertaken by the petitioner on the basis of the permission obtained.
3. Petitioner further contends that, while the construction is in progress, the authorities have issued notice dt.28.05.2024, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within three days; that the petitioner submitted explanation to the same on 24.06.2024 enclosing therewith the 2 relevant documents; and that the respondents-authorities, without passing any order thereon, are calling upon the petitioner not to proceed with the construction, which action, it is contended highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that one Suneel Kumar Kalekar R/o S.S.Gutta Bhageeratha Colony Road, Mahabubnagar, had made a complaint with the authorities on 20.05.2024 claiming that the concerned Court of Civil jurisdiction had passed judgment and decree in O.S.No.2 of 1974 in respect of land in Sy.Nos.1037 and 1040 situated at Mahabubnagar Town and District, and the subject property has been encroached by the petitioner and sought for initiation of action against the construction being made in the aforesaid land.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on receiving the aforesaid complaint from one Suneel Kumar Kalekar, the authorities have issued intimation dt.28.05.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation; and that the petitioner having submitted explanation on 24.06.2024, the authorities would take further action in the matter by examining the prima facie title, and possession of the subject property being claimed by the petitioner, having regard to the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction in O.S.No.2 of 1974. 3
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. A perusal to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2 of 1974 dt.31.12.1974 shows that the aforesaid suit was laid for recovery of possession of land in Sy.Nos.1037 and 1040 situated in Mahabubnagar Town, and the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction having passed a decree holding that the defendants in the aforesaid suit are required to vacate therefrom within one year from the date of the judgment and decree, and in the event of the defendants therein failing to vacate the subject property, the plaintiffs are given option to execute the decree for recovery of vacant possession of the subject land after demolishing the buildings.
9. While the said Suneel Kumar Kalekar, claimed in the complaint that for enforcement of the aforesaid judgment and decree he had filed Execution Petition before the concerned Court, vide E.P.No.16 of 1981, the petitioner by the reply submitted to the 2nd respondent authority had claimed the said E.P. to be closed.
10. Since, the petitioner is claiming that the subject execution petition filed by the plaintiffs/decree holders in O.S.No.2 of 1974 as having been closed without placing before this Court either the order in the E.P. or the compromise that has been arrived at between the parties in the said execution petition, this Court is of the view that it is for the 2nd respondent 4 authority to consider the documents as filed by the petitioner in response to the notice dt.28.05.2024 and take further action by following due process of law only after arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner does not have prima facie title to the subject property for her to obtain building permission.
11. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:02.07.2024 GJ