Telangana High Court
K.Praveen Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 October, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.13874 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the revocation order vide
Lr.No.HMDAL107045/LRS/GTK/Plg/HMDA/2015-16, dated 22.05.2021
in respect of Plot Nos.10 Part, 11 and 12, in Sy.No.79/E, situated at
Peerzadiguda Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
2. Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd
Respondent/the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (for
short, 'the HMDA'), Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 3rd Respondent/Peerzadiguda Municipal Corporation and
Sri Pranay Sohini, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent and perused the
record.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
i) The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of Plot bearing Nos.10-Part, 11 and 12 in Sy.No.79/E
admeasuring 600sq.yards, situated in Peerzadiguda Village, Medipally
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district ( for short, 'the subject property'),
and he has purchased the said property under a registered sale deed
document bearing document No.6765 of 1999, dated 03.09.1999.
ii) He has executed a registered GPA bearing document No.4235 of
2015, dated 28.08.2015 in favour of his brother K.Ramakrishna Reddy, to
deal with the said property.
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
iii) The Petitioner herein had obtained land regularization
proceedings dated 30.12.2019 under Layout Regularization Scheme
(hereinafter called as 'LRS') by paying necessary fee. The said
proceedings would show that the subject property is in Sy.No.79/E of
Peerzadiguda Village.
iv) Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained building permits dated
21.02.2020, 24.04.2020 and 04.08.2020 and constructions were made and
when the buildings were about to be completed for occupation, he
received show cause notice, dated 01.02.2021 from the 2nd Respondent
stating that the Petitioner herein had obtained the said LRS proceedings
dated 30.12.2019 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. An
explanation was sought from the petitioner as to why the LRS Proceedings
granted in his favour should not be revoked as per Section 22 of the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for short, 'the
HMDA Act').
v) The Petitioner herein had submitted his explanation dated
24.02.2021 stating that there is no suppression and misrepresentation of
fact on his part in obtaining LRS Proceedings.
vi) Without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent had
issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.05.2021 revoking the LRS
proceedings issued in favour of the Petitioners herein.
vii) Therefore, the present writ petition.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
i) In the impugned proceedings, it is mentioned that the 2nd
Respondent had received a complaint from the 4th respondent through his
counsel stating that the 4th Respondent is absolute owner and possessor of
the land admeasuring Ac.2.21guntas in Sy.No.79/part and 85/part, situated
in Peerzadiguda Village.
ii) In the impugned order, it is mentioned that a suit vide
O.S.No.1105 of 2008 for perpetual injunction was filed against the
petitioner and 10 others by the 4th Respondent with regard to the said
agricultural land in Sy.No.75/1, 75/2 and 80 Part, and the same was
decreed.
iii) The petitioner had filed a suit O.S.No.1214 of 2001,with
respect to the subject property, for perpetual injunction against one Ravula
Krishna and the same was decreed.
iv) W.P.No.24386 of 2019 was filed by Ch.Srinivas and others
when their L.R.S. proceedings were cancelled without issuing any show
cause notice in respect of Plot Nos.18 and 19 in Sy.No.79/E.
v) The suit vide O.S.No.1226 of 2001 filed by brother of the
Petitioner seeking perpetual injunction was dismissed observing that he
was not in possession of the said suit property in Sy.No.79/E.
vi) An appeal vide A.S.No.356 of 2020 is pending and the same is
not against the Plot No.10-Part, 11 and 12 in Sy.No.79/E of Peerzadiguda
Village. There is no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner
herein.
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
vii) The 2nd Respondent without considering the same, revoked the
LRS proceedings by way of the impugned proceedings.
viii) With the said submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner
sought to set aside the impugned proceedings.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
i) The 2nd Respondent had filed counter and vacate petition.
ii) In the counter, it has been specifically mentioned about the
suppression of facts and pendency of suits and first appeal as follows:-.
Sl. Case Number Case details Order Date
No.
1 O.S.No.1226 of 2021 Petitioner Plaintiff was not in 25.08.2010
was plaintiff possession of the suit was
in that case plot in Sy.No.79/E dismissed
in respect of and the 79/A plot
Sy.No.79/E. was already sold to
M.Moses Vinod
Kumar (i.e.
Respondent No.4
against which herein)
A.S. No. 356 of 2010 on
the file of XIII
Additional district and Petitioner
Sessions Judge RR was the Dismissed
district seeking to set appellant.
aside the decree and
judgment in O.S.No.
1226 of 2001 dated
25.08.2010
2 O.S.No.1105 of 2008 on Respondent Suit decreed in 18.01.2018
the file of the II No.4 herein favour of plaintiff for decreed as
Additional Senior Civil was the property admeasuring against the
Judge, Ranga Reddy plaintiff in Ac.0.25¼ guntas in petitioner
District the suit and Sy.No.79/1/p, herein and
he was Ac.1.18 guntas in others.
seeking to Sy.No.79/2, 0.17 ¾
restrain the guntas in
petitioner Sy.No.80/p, fully
Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring Ac.2.21
herein and guntas situated in
others from Peerzadiguda`
entering into
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
scheduled
property.
3 I.A.No.670 of 2011 in R.Krishna Dismissed 08.11.2011
O.S.No.283 of 2011 on approached
the file of Additional the Court
Junior Civil Judge, against
Ranga Reddy District respondent
No.4 herein
for seeking
temporary
injunction in
Sy.No.79/A
admeasuring
Ac.1.08gts
of
Peerzadiguda
village
4 O.S.No.1214 of 2001 1st Petitioner Got perpetual 25.08.2010
herein is the injunction against ex-parte
plaintiff in Ravula Krishna by decree.
the suit filed way of ex-parte
against decree
Ravula
Krishna
(who is not a
party herein)
for perpetual
injunction in
sy.No.79/A
admeasuring
Ac.1.08gts.
iii) It has received a complaint from the 4th respondent stating that
the Petitioner herein had obtained the said LRS proceedings on
30.12.2019 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. He has applied
for regularization of plots on 28.01.2016 sating that the said plots are in
Sy.No.79/E, however, the same is to be determined in civil suits
mentioned supra. Thus, it can be conclusively presumed that the Petitioner
purposefully did not disclose the said facts before the 2nd Respondent
while making LRS application or at least before 30.12.2019 when his LRS
application was approved by regularizing his plots.
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
iv) The 2nd Respondent, after issuing show cause notice, calling for
explanation from the petitioner, revoked the LRS proceedings issued in
favour of the Petitioner.
v) The 2nd Respondent has followed the procedure laid down under
the Act, more particularly Section 22 of the HMDA Act.
vi) The impugned order is a reasoned order. Therefore, there is no
error in it.
vii) With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present
Writ Petition.
6. CONTENTIONS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
i) The 4th Respondent has also filed counter and vacate petition on
the very same lines as that of the 2nd Respondent.
ii) According to him, the Property is in Sy.Nos.79/1, 79/2 and 80
Part of Peerzadiguda Village, whereas, the petitioner claiming that the said
land is in Sy.No.79/E.
iii) The Petitioner herein has suppressed the pendency of the above
said suits and appeals and also the Writ Petition filed by him.
iv) In the said Writ Petitions, the brother and GPA holder of the
petitioner is a party. Therefore, there is clear suppression and
misrepresentation of the fact by the Petitioner while obtaining the LRS
proceedings.
v) The 4th Respondent had submitted representation dated
12.11.2020 with the 2nd Respondent with a request to cancel /revoke the
LRS proceedings issued in favour of the Petitioner.
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
vi) On receipt of the said representation, the 2nd Respondent
following the due procedure laid down, revoked the LRS proceedings
issued in favour of the Petitioner vide proceedings dated 22.05.2021.
vii) Therefore, there is no irregularity in the impugned proceedings.
viii) With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
7. The above stated facts would reveal that the Petitioner herein is
claiming that he had purchased the subject property. Thereafter he had
obtained LRS proceedings dated 30.12.2019. Whereas, the 4th respondent
is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land
admeasuring Ac.2-21guntas in Sy.No.79/1, 79/2 and 80 part of the
Peerzadiguda Village.
8. The petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.1214 of 2001
against one Ravula Krishna seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit
was decreed on 11.11.2008. A perusal of the said decree would reveal that
though the said Ravula Krishna filed written statement, he has not
prosecuted the said suit thereafter and it was decreed ex parte. There is no
suppression of material evidence both oral and documentary in the said
decree. Learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District
decreed the suit by holding that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the
Exs.A.1 to A.9 categorically prove and establish that the plaintiff/
Petitioner herein is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property
and on the other hand, the defendant(Ravula Krishna) had failed to
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
establish his plea and therefore, the suit was decreed. Thus, the said decree
and judgment dated 11.11.2008 in O.S.No.1214 of 2001 is an ex parte
decree and it is not on merits.
9. It is settled law that an ex parte decree shall be on merits.
However, in the written statement, the said Ravula Krishna, the defendant
therein, has specifically mentioned that the vendors of the Petitioner
herein already executed sale deed in favour of the 4th Respondent and
Korian on 28.06.1996 mentioning the survey numbers as 79/1 to an extent
of Ac.1-18 guntas and the Petitioner's vendors created pahanis showing
Sy.No.79/E and sold to the plaintiff which is not in existence. Sy.No.79/A
stands in the name of Yaske Laxmaiah and Osman Ali Pasha. Therefore,
the said Osman Ali Pasha filed a suit vide O.S.No.359 of 1985 and the
same was ended in compromise. The said Ravula Krishna, had also field a
suit vide O.S.No.101210/2002 against the 4th Respondent and others.
10. The 4th Respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.1105/2008
against the Petitioner herein, his brother and others seeking perpetual
injunction and the same was decreed on 18.01.2018 by the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, restraining the
Petitioner and his brother and others from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the 4th Respondent over the suit schedule
property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.2.21guntas in Sy.No.79/1 part, 79/2 part
and 80 part of Peerzadiguda Village and Gram Panchayat.
11. According to the 4th Respondent, the petitioner herein has filed
an Appeal vide A.S.No.116 of 2018 and the same is pending. There is no
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
interim order. Therefore, the said decree and judgment in O.S.No.1105/
2008 is in force. It is also relevant to note that the brother and GPA holder
of the Petitioner i.e. K.Ramakrishna Reddy had filed a suit vide
O.S.No.1226 of 2001 seeking perpetual injunction and the same was
decreed on 25.08.2010 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District with regard to Plot No.20 admeasuring 536sq.yards in
Sy.No.79/E situated in Peerzadiguda village. The 4th Respondent and
another have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22218/2020 against the 2nd
Respondent, brother and GPA holder of the Petitioner seeking to declare
the action of the Peerzadiguda Municipality in not demolishing illegal and
unauthorized structures of the unofficial respondents therein including
brother and GPA holder of the Petitioner herein in Sy.No.79/E. The said
Writ Petition is pending and therefore, the brother and GPA holder of the
Petitioner herein is aware of the said Writ Petition.
12. As stated in the impugned notice, the Petitioner herein has
applied for LRS on 28.01.2016 and the same was granted on 30.12.2019.
Thus, by the date of the said application dated 28.01.2016, O.S.No.1226
of 2001, A.S.No.356 of 2010, O.S.No.1105 of 2008, O.S.No.281 of 2011,
O.S.No.1214 of 2001 were pending with regard to the very same property.
By the date of issuance of L.R.S. proceedings, i.e. 30.12.2019, the said
suits were decreed and appeal vide A.S.No.116 of 2018 was filed by the
Petitioner which is also pending. Thus, the Petitioner and his brother and
GPA holder Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy were aware of the said proceedings
on the date of filing of the LRS application and on issuance of the said
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
LRS proceedings dated 30.12.2019. Therefore, the contention of learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the property claimed by the Petitioner is
different from the property claimed by the 4th Respondent and therefore
there is no need to the Petitioner to disclose the pendency of the different
suits, the appeal and writ petitions etc., is not sustainable.
13. The above stated facts would also reveal that there is dispute
with regard to identification of the property. As discussed above, the
Petitioner herein claims that the subject property is in Sy.No.79/E and the
4th Respondent claims that the subject property is in 79/1 part, 79/2 and
80/part in the very same Peerzadiguda Village and the same is the subject
matter of the above said suits and first appeal.
14. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein has executed
notarized indemnity bond/undertaking (LRS) in favour of 2nd Respondent
in terms of the said LRS Scheme wherein he has stated that the 2nd
Respondent has agreed to consider regularization of the said unapproved
sub division of plots in terms of the Telangana Regularization of
Unproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2015 and made it a condition that
there shall not be any defect/litigation over the said site/land and the same
is free from all claims of Government/Banks/and attachments of Courts
and the Petitioner has to indemnify the 2nd Respondent to the said effect.
Accordingly, the Petitioner, having agreed to the said condition,
indemnified the 2nd Respondent with the above said assurance and
solemnly declared that the site/land is the property of the Petitioner who is
in possession since the date of purchase and the same is free from all
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
defects/litigations, claims and attachments from any Courts etc., and in
case of any disputes/litigations arise at any time in future, the Petitioner
shall be responsible for the settlement of the same and the 2nd Respondent
shall not be a party to any such dispute/litigations. Based on the
submission of the said indemnity bond/undertaking only, the 2nd
Respondent had granted LRS proceedings in favour of the Petitioner dated
30.12.2019. Thus, the said indemnity bond/undertaking given by the
Petitioner dated 28.01.2016, is nothing but suppression and
misrepresentation of facts. Thus, the Petitioner herein has suppressed
pendency of the above said suits and the litigations between him and the
4th Respondent.
15. It is relevant to note that Mr. Ch. Srinivas and others have filed
a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.24386 of 2019 against the 2nd Respondent
and the 4th Respondent herein challenging the revocation orders dated
28.10.2019 in revoking the LRS proceedings without serving a show
cause notice. Therefore, on the submission made by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the show cause notice was
not served on the Petitioner, the said Writ Petition was disposed of on
26.11.2019 without going into the merits of the case and set aside the said
revocation orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice.
16. Section 22 of the HMDA Act deals with the revocation of
permission and as per which the 2nd Respondent or the Government may
revoke any development permission issued under the HMDA Act
KL,J
W.P.No.13874 of 2021
whenever it is found that it was obtained by making any false statement or
misrepresentation or suppression of any material facts or reply by
following the due procedure. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent by invoking
the said power, after issuing show cause notice, dated 01.02.2021 and
after calling for explanation from the Petitioner, passed the impugned
order. Therefore, there is no violation of procedure laid down under the
said Act and it is in compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is
also relevant to note that the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order by
giving specific reasons and also considering the explanation submitted by
the Petitioner. In the said impugned order, the 2nd respondent had
mentioned about the nature of facts including the pendency of the suits,
Writ Petitions and first appeal. It is a reasoned order. Thus, the petitioner
herein fails to make out any ground to interfere with the said impugned
order dated 22.05.2021.
17. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs. The interim order dated 24.06.2021 shall
stand vacated.
18. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:25.10.2021
Vvr
