Mohammad Rafiuddin vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 376 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                    W.P.No.18250 OF 2020
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development for respondent No.1, and the learned Standing

Counsel for Municipality for respondent No.2. With their

consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of

admission itself.

The present writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ

of certiorari quashing the impugned rejection order dated

19.06.2020 passed by respondent No.2 vide File

No.3148/Siddipet Town/2020/0204.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

impugned rejection order has been passed by the respondent

No.2, without putting the petitioner on notice, and without

considering the fact that already there is a registered gift deed

in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land, and

therefore, he prays to quash the same.

A perusal of the impugned rejection order clearly shows

that the main ground on which respondent No.2 has rejected

the application of the petitioner for building permission is

that the matter involves civil dispute. The impugned order

further reveals that the petitioner was not put on notice

before passing the same.

This Court in T. Rameshwar v. Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad1, has held that

merely because civil disputes are pending, the same cannot

be a ground for rejection of the application for building

permission.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, and in view of ratio laid down by this Court in the above

referred judgment, this Court is of the prima facie opinion

that the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside, and

the same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded

back to respondent No.2 to decide the same afresh.

Respondent No.2 shall pass necessary orders on merits, and

in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly putting the

petitioner as well as any other interested party on notice and

affording them an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order

that may be passed by respondent No.2 shall be

communicated to the parties.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 10.02.2021 va

1 2006 (3) ALD 337