Telangana High Court
M. Prabhakar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4128 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking any action on the complaints made by the petitioner on 18-01-2024 in respect of illegal construction and encroachment made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the land of petitioner admeasuring 484 sq. yards in Sy.No.818 situated at Moosapet, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to cancel the building permission dated 29-12-2023 issued for the land in H.No.12-10-92/2/2/1, to an extent of 820 sq. yards in Sy.No.820/A situated at Moosapet, Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 2 respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri A.Vishveshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8, and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Petitioner contends that while he is the owner of land admeasuring 484 sq. yards in Sy.No.818 situated at Moosapaet, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 taking advantage of the said land being vacant and are also adjacent land owners in respect of house bearing No.12-10-92/2/2/1 in Sy.No.820/A, had entered into a development agreement with respondent No.8 by fabricating documents with the support of their henchmen and approached the respondent authorities and obtained building permission dated 29-12-2023 for construction of 1 stilt + 4 upper floors to an extent of 420.02 sq. meters while the registered document bearing No.7142/2002 shows total area to be 820 sq. yards.
4. Petitioner further contends that the subject site for which the unofficial respondents have obtained building permission falls under buffer zone of Moosapet Nala and as such, no permission can be granted.
3
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that while petitioner is claiming his land to be in Sy.No.818, the unofficial respondents had applied and were granted building permission in respect of land in Sy.No.820/A.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the total extent of the land possessed by the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 being 820 sq. yards equivalent to 685.22 sq. mts, the permission was granted only in respect of 420 sq. meters thereby leaving area of 265.5 sq. mts towards buffer zone.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Authorities by causing due verification of prima facie title of respondent Nos.5 to 7 represented by respondent No.8 had granted building permission.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 submits that the present Writ Petition, as filed by the petitioner, is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing the fact that he has suffered an adverse order in O.S.No.216 of 2018. 4
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 further contends that respondent Nos.5 to 7 had approached the respondent authorities and obtained permission only in respect of land admeasuring 420 sq. mts out of 685.22 sq. mts leaving open area of buffer zone of Moosapet Nala, wherein no construction is permitted.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 further submits that the land being claimed by the of petitioner being in Sy.No.818 is not within the vicinity of land of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in Sy.No.820/A and thus, the claim of the petitioner of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 are adjacent owners, is an incorrect statement.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submits that the petitioner is in the habit of making false and frivolous claims and on the basis of such untenable claims, is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 over the said property. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 further contends that when the petitioner tried to interfere with his enjoyment of the property at an earlier point of time, the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 had tried to lodge a complaint with the concerned police, and as the 5 concerned police did not entertain the complaint of unofficial respondents, the unofficial respondents had approached the competent Civil Court by filing O.S.No.46 of 2018 for grant of perpetual injunction and the petitioner herein, in spite of being served with summons, remained ex parte therein.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 further contends that on account of the petitioner remaining ex parte in the above proceeding, judgment was passed on 22-06-2018 and thereafter a decree was also drawn up in respect of the schedule property.
13. Thus, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 contends that the present Writ Petition is clearly an abuse of process of law.
14. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
15. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition does not mention about the proceedings that have been initiated by the unofficial respondents against the petitioner vide O.S.No.46 of 2018. Though petitioner had contended that the judgment and decree in the aforesaid proceedings are ex parte, it is not shown to this Court of the petitioner taking any steps to get 6 the said ex parte order set aside. Thus, it is to be noted that the aforesaid order passed by the Court of civil jurisdiction in O.S.No.46 of 2018 had attained finality.
16. The petitioner having suffered an adverse order in the aforesaid civil proceedings, after a lapse of nearly 5 years had come up with the present Writ Petition making a claim that the unofficial respondents are making illegal construction without obtaining any permission and also in buffer zone of Moosapet Nala, which claim of the petitioner, on account of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel of respondent Nos.5 to 7 obtaining permission for construction on 29-12-2023, is proved to be incorrect statement.
17. Further, taking note of the fact that total extent of land of unofficial respondent being 685.22 sq. mts and since the building permission obtained is only 420.02 sq. mts, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner of the construction being made in the buffer zone of Moonscape Nala is also without any basis, more so when no material is placed before this Court to accept the said contention.
7
18. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition, as filed, is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.30,000/-.
19. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four (4) weeks.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:18.03.2024 Vsv