Mohd. Shareef vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6571 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                     WRIT PETITION No.44054 of 2022

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...To issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent Municipality in not demolishing the construction which was made by the 3rd respondent over the plot bearing No 7 and 8/A admeasuring 300 Sq yards in Sy No 90/A situated at Christianpally of Mahabubnagar Municipality andDistrict based upon the erroneous permission which was revoked by the 2nd respondent Commissioner though the petitioner made representation to remove the illegal construction and further though the 2nd respondent is bound to demolish the same as illegal unlawful contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to demolish the illegal construction of the 3rd respondent made on the plot of the petitioner by considering the pending representation which includes the latest representation dated 28-11-2022 and pass ..."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. Damodar Reddy submits that

petitioner is an absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.7 & 8/A to an

extent of 300 Sq yards in Sy.No.90/A at Christianpally village of

Mahabubnagar Municipality, which was purchased by him by way of

registered sale deed on 29.04.2013. He submits that petitioner has filed

O.S.No.41 of 2014 against the vendor of the respondent No.3 and the said Suit

was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 and in the said suit

there is a finding that the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioner and

as no appeal has been preferred, the said judgment and decree has become

final. The respondent No.3 has purchased this property from the defendants in

the Suit approached the respondents for building permission then the

petitioner has approached them by enclosing the decree and judgment of the

Civil Court. Therafter, on 24.03.2022 the respondents have revoked the

permission granted to the unofficial respondent in spite of the same the unofficial respondent is making constructions and then the petitioner has given

a representation on 28.11.2022 to the respondents but it was not considered by

the respondents.

3. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy appearing for

respondent No.2 submits that they will consider the representation dated

28.11.2022.

4. Recording the submission of learned Standing Counsel, the Writ

Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to consider the

representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2022 and pass appropriate orders,

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

of a copy of this order. Before passing orders, the official respondents shall

issue notice to the unofficial respondent. As this Court is directing the official

respondents to issue notice to the unofficial respondent before passing orders,

notice to the unofficial respondent is not necessary in this writ petition. No

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 7th December , 2022 myk