M. Shashidharan Raju vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7028 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7028 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

M. Shashidharan Raju vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 December, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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


                     WRIT APPEAL No.833 of 2022

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


       Heard Mr. M.Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. B.Yadaiah, learned Assistant Government

Pleader        appearing           for      respondent       No.1;    and

Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

07.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.44034 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ

petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking a

direction to Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority (HMDA) to consider the representation of the

appellant dated 16.11.2022.

4. Appellant had filed the representation dated

16.11.2022 against any proposal to grant

approval/sanction for construction in land admeasuring

Acs.15.24 guntas in Survey No.13 and Acs.15.29 guntas in

Survey No.14 situated at Ammuguda Village, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.

5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that

in respect of the aforesaid land, appellant along with others

had filed a civil suit, being O.S.No.16 of 1998, which was

dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District on 23.02.2006, against which

appellant and others had preferred an appeal. In the

appeal there is an order directing the respondents therein

not to alienate the property. In this connection, appellant

had made the above representation. It was contended on

behalf of HMDA that it was not under any obligation to

issue notice to the appellant. HMDA was not a party to the

suit. Therefore, any order passed therein is not binding on

HMDA.

6. Having regard to the above, learned Single Judge

took the view that this Court could not direct HMDA to

issue a notice to the appellant. Accordingly, the writ

petition was dismissed.

7. We find that issue raised in this writ appeal was gone

into by this Court in W.A.Nos.513 and 516 of 2022

(P. Subba Rao v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority) decided on 17.11.2022. After examining the

scope and ambit of Section 53 of the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, this Court

took the view that there is no provision for raising objection

to development permission or no objection certificate

granted by HMDA. It has been held as follows:

16. On a careful scrutiny of Section 53 of the Act as well as other provisions thereof, we do not find that there is any provision for raising objection to development permission or no objection certificate granted by HMDA. Discretion is vested on the HMDA whether to grant development permission or not. While granting development permission, HMDA is not required to enter into disputed questions of title etc. If it is prima facie satisfied about the claim of the applicant seeking development permission, it can grant such permission.

17. Reverting back to the order dated 22.10.2021, we find that appellants had filed objection on 17.05.2018 to the building permission granted to M/s. Rishab Realtors and M/s.Raghuram. Explanation was called for from M/s.Raghuram on 11.10.2021. However, it was noted that such explanation was not received. Referring to sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act, it was stated that any development permission given under the Act is to be construed from the planned development point of view which would in no way either confirm ownership rights or affect the ownership under land revenue laws. It was further noted that there is no provision in the Act to enable a person to file objection before HMDA opposing grant of development permission. This has been judicially decided. Therefore, the objection filed by the appellants was not maintainable. Clarifying that development permission granted would not confer any title nor would it take away the right of any other person from over the subject land, it was clarified that the objector could approach the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance. Before concluding, Metropolitan Commissioner stated that appellants had filed similar complaint in 2017 which was examined, but was rejected.

8. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal.

9. Before parting with the record there is one more

aspect which we have noticed. Appellant had submitted

the representation to HMDA on 16.11.2022. The writ

affidavit annexed to the appeal memo discloses that it was

sworn on 28.11.2022, meaning thereby that the writ

petition was filed on 28.11.2022.

10. Thus, the related writ petition came to be filed within

twelve days of submission of the representation. It is trite

law that a writ of mandamus must be preceded by demand

and refusal. A period of twelve days for a public authority

to look into a representation cannot be said to be a