The State Of Telangana vs Master Patluri Rohith Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4094 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


              WRIT APPEAL No.1705 of 2018

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      Heard Mr. P.Radhive, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. Polisetty

Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the final

order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing W.P.No.27390 of 2018 filed by the respondent as

the writ petitioner.

3. The related writ petition was filed by the respondent

assailing the legality and validity of the order dated

20.07.2018 of appellant No.3 declining to consider building

application of the respondent.

4. Relevant portion of the order dated 20.07.2018 reads

as under:

"Further it is inform you that there is a complaint petition dated 12.4.2016 from Sri E.Mahesh Kumar and Sri

S.V.Shankar Reddy claiming the ownership over the subject property bearing Plot Nos.31, 32, 33 and 34 part of Sy.No.69 of Raja Rajeshwari Township, Old Bowenpally and also submitted the sale deeds executed by the St.Marys Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., and the suit schedule property for which permission has been applied is falling part in the plot number 31 as per St.Marys layout which has been registered vide Agreement of Sale cum Irrevocable GPA 1754/156 dated 17.3.2016 executed by (1) Smt. Y.Syamala Devi W/o Y.Balaswamy Reddy (2) Sri Y.Sravan Kumar Reddy S/o Y.Balaswamy Reddy in favour of Sri S.V.Shanker Reddy S/o late Sri Venkat Reddy (copy of the document is enclosed).

In view of the above, your building application cannot be considered as per said U.O.Note B/1545/TPS/ CCP/HO/GHMC/2016/485 dated 19/24.4.2017".

5. According to the respondent, he is the owner of house

plot admeasuring 237 square yards bearing house plot

No.8-7-113/2/1, Tirumala Colony, Old Bowenpally,

Secunderabad. Earlier, his grandfather had executed a

registered gift deed No.2260/16 dated 29.02.2016 gifting a

part of the aforesaid house admeasuring 840 square yards

in favour of his mother. In turn, respondent's mother

executed a registered gift deed No.3085/16 dated

21.03.2016 gifting a part of the aforesaid house

admeasuring 237 square yards in favour of the respondent.

This is how respondent became the absolute owner and

possessor of the aforesaid house plot and enjoying the

same.

6. Respondent had submitted an application dated

02.04.2016 before appellant No.3 seeking permission for

construction of ground + first floor in the above land.

Permission was sought for on the ground that the original

house had become dilapidated and needed to be

reconstructed. However, the application was rejected by

appellant No.3 on 25.04.2016 on the ground of pendency

of appeal before this Court. Respondent clarified before

appellant No.3 that his house was not the subject matter of

any litigation, including the appeal referred to justifying

rejection of application. Fresh application was filed but

appellant No.3 again rejected the request of the respondent

on 03.09.2016 this time on the ground that the sanctioned

plan was not tallying with the proposed area. This came to

be challenged by the respondent before this Court in

W.P.No.31749 of 2016. The writ petition was allowed by

this Court on 29.09.2016 holding that as long as the

property in question belongs to the respondent, it was not

open to appellant No.3 to deny him building permission

merely on the ground that previous sanctioned plan was

not tallying with the proposed plot area. Accordingly, order

dated 03.09.2016 was set aside and appellants No.2 and 3

were directed to reconsider the application of the

respondent for building permission.

7. Alleging non-compliance, respondent had filed

contempt case before this Court. However, fresh order was

passed thereafter on 15.04.2017 by appellant No.3 again

rejecting the application for building permission. In

W.P.No.10710 of 2018 filed by the respondent, this Court

passed an interim order directing appellants No.2 and 3 to

consider the application of the respondent for building

permission. It was thereafter that the impugned order

came to be passed.

8. Appellants, who were respondents in the writ

proceedings, contested the writ petition justifying the

impugned rejection order.

9. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 10.10.2018

referred to the Layout Regularisation Scheme (LRS), 2015

by which building permission was directed to be

considered by collecting basic penalisation charges and

compounding fee plus open space contribution charges on

the present market value of the site/plot applied for

building permission. Learned Single Judge also referred to

Government instructions dated 06.04.2016 fixing

28.10.2015 as the cut-off date for availing the benefit

under LRS 2015. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held as

follows:

"15. As per the above instructions, it is incumbent on the part of the Respondents to consider the building permission application by collecting basic penalisation charges as per LRS-2015 and 33% compounding fee on the same plus 14% open space contribution charges on the present market value of the site/plot applied for building permission. Since this arrangement is intended solely for those who could not avail LRS guidelines 2015, there is no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent to fix 28.10.2015 as cut-off date. As held supra, the complaint of defendants in O.S.No.181 of 2003 cannot be a ground for rejection in the absence of any order of the Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the respondents in

rejecting the building permission application of the petitioner herein.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the letter bearing No.3.C22/10038/2018 dated 20.7.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.24, Kukatpally Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad-3rd respondent and consequently the respondents herein are directed to consider the building application of the petitioner in accordance with U.O. Note No.B/1545/TPS/CCP/HO/GHMC/2016/485 dated 19/24.4.2017 and pass appropriate orders on the building permission application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

9.1. Thus, from the above, it is evident that learned Single

Judge relied upon LRS 2015 and also Government letter

dated 06.04.2016 directing consideration of building

permission in plots/sites which were not applied earlier

under LRS 2015. Thereafter, learned Single Judge took the

view that since the above arrangement was intended only

for those who could not avail LRS 2015, there could not

have been any justification for fixing 28.10.2015 as the cut

off date. Besides, learned Single Judge took the view that

there being no injunction order in the pending civil suit,

the same also could not have been a ground to deny

building permission. Accordingly, direction was issued to

consider building permission.

10. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

respondent has placed before us G.O.Ms.No.131, dated

31.08.2020 of the Municipal Administration & Urban

Development (Planning III) Department, Government of

Telangana. The said Government Order has been issued

for regularisation of unapproved and illegal layouts in

urban and rural areas. As per the said Government Order,

statutory rules have been framed in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 58 of the Telangana Urban Areas

(Development) Act, 1975, Section 585 of the Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Section

44(2)(v) of the Telangana Town Planning Act, 1920, Section

238(1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, Section

56(1) of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority Act, 2008 and Section 286 of Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The rules are called "Telangana

Regularisation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules,

2020".

11. Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules provides for cut-off date

for considering regularisation of unapproved layouts.

Clause (a) thereof says that only those layouts and sub-

division of plots with registered sale deed/title deed

existing as on 26.08.2020 shall be considered for

regularisation under the Telangana Regularisation of

Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2020.

12. If this be the position, then the very sub-stratum of

the lis before us would no longer survive, as the claim of

the respondent would be covered by the Telangana

Regularisation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules,

2020.

13. That being the position and considering the

subsequent development, we are not inclined to entertain

the writ appeal.

14. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 10.08.2022 vs