Suresh Productions vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6872 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                             W.P.No.45071 of 2022
ORDER

This Writ Petition is with the following prayer;

"to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the revised speaking order No.4558/UC/2022 dated 28-11-2022 pursuant to the show cause notice under TS-bPASS ACT, 2020/ GHMC Act, 1955 dated 17-11-2022 issued by Respondent No. 4 relying on the interim speaking order of Respondent No.3 vide Nos.306/2022, 57/2022, 6332/2021, 6498/2021, 6199/2021, 6417/2021 and 6330/2021 as being illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and thereby set aside the same".

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. P. Sri Raghuram,

representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.

Sri Ram, submits that petitioner No.1 has purchased the land to an

extent of Ac;2-34 gts in Sy.No.163 by way of three registered sale

deeds dated 01-01-2001, 01-02-2001 and 04-01-2001 from one Gunti

Srinivas Yadav and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the land to

an extent of Ac:0.08-60 gts, Ac.0.31.5 gts and Ac.1-17 gts from the

said Srinivas Yadav vide separate registered sale deeds

dated 04-01-2001 and 05-01-2001 respectively. He submits that as

certain persons have raised third party claims in respect of the subject

property, civil suits in O.S.No.269 of 2021 and 270 of 2021 are filed

before the XV Additional District Judge, Kukatpally, and transferred to

VI Additional District Judge, Kukatpally. He submits that as some anti 2 LK, J W.P.No.45071 of 2022

social elements have occupied the property with an intention to grab

the same, the petitioners along with their neighbours have made a

representation to the respondents and thereafter, W.P.No.11768 of

2021 was filed by their neighbor and this Court has passed an order to

consider the representation and subsequent to which, respondent No.2

has passed orders disposing of the said representations. Learned

Senior Counsel submits that when the third parties are trying to occupy

the land illegally, for protecting the land, the petitioners have erected a

temporary compound wall. He submits that when there is an attempt to

encroach the property, the owner is entitled to protect the same. He

submits that in fact, when the petitioners intend to make an application

through TS-bPASS Act, the same was not successful as the said portal

is not accepting the application as there are certain land acquisition writ

petitions and civil suits are pending in respect of the said property. He

submits that in the proceedings dated 28-11-2022, several proceedings

were referred to and at Sl.No.2 of the reference, a show cause notice

dated 17-11-2022 is mentioned. Learned Senior Counsel submits that

the said notice is not served on the petitioners, further, it also refers to

the interim order of the Human Rights Commission. He submits that in

view of the settled law, when there is a civil litigation pending between

the parties, the Human Rights Commission has no authority or

jurisdiction to pass these kind of orders and the same are not binding

on the GHMC. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.

Manikyamma and others v. Roudri Cooperative Housing Society 3 LK, J W.P.No.45071 of 2022

Limited and others1 and submits that the Human Rights Commission

has no jurisdiction to pass such orders and further, when there is a

complaint with regard to the unauthorized constructions, the party is

entitled for a notice. According to the learned senior counsel, no notice

is issued to the petitioners and there is a violation of the principles of

natural justice and on this ground, the order impugned is liable to be

set aside.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 Mr.

M.A.K.Mukheed submits that the petitioners have submitted their

explanation on 08-12-2022.

4. In response to the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that

the said explanation is made by the petitioners to the revised speaking

order dated 28-11-2022 and it is not for the show cause notice as the

same is not received by the petitioners.

5. The admitted facts in this case are that a compound wall was

constructed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, it is for the

purpose of protecting the land and they are also trying to make an

application to get permission for construction of a compound wall. Be

that as may, on the face of it, this construction is made, as per the reply

and as per the affidavit filed before this Court, is without any

(2014) 15 SCC 197 4 LK, J W.P.No.45071 of 2022

permission. However, as no notice is given to the petitioners, the

respondents shall issue a notice to the petitioners with one week from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and they shall decide the

same uninfluenced by the orders passed by the Human Rights

Commission. As the complaint is received with regard to the illegal

constructions, they have to issue a notice and independently deal with

the same and if there is any unauthorized construction, the

respondents are bound to take action.

6. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing

the respondent Corporation to issue notice to the petitioners within one

week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and take further

steps within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is always open to the

petitioners are at liberty to make an application for construction of a

compound wall and the same shall be considered in accordance with

law. No order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition

shall stand closed.

____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 16th December, 2022.

Note:

Issue CC in two days.

sj