M. Chalapathi Rao vs K. Ravi Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5664 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                 AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                 WRIT APPEAL No.725 of 2022


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


      Heard Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. V.Akash, learned counsel for respondent No.1;

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department

for respondent No.2; and Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022.

3. Respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner had filed

the related writ petition alleging that no action was being

taken by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)

and its officials on the representation dated 06.07.2022 to

stop unauthorized construction being undertaken by the

appellants in the 40 feet road at premises Nos.6-1-126 & 127, 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022

situated at Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad. Respondent

No.1 further sought for a direction to GHMC and its officials

to stop unauthorized construction being undertaken by the

appellants in the aforesaid 40 feet road.

4. It appears that without issuing notice to the

appellants who were arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the

writ petition, learned Single Judge disposed of the same by

directing GHMC to consider the representation dated

06.07.2022 and thereafter to pass appropriate orders within

four (04) weeks after giving due notice to the appellants.

5. From the materials on record, we find that

Sri K.Ramulu and others including the 1st respondent/writ

petitioner had instituted O.S.No.86 of 2005 before the XX

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,

contending that there was a 40 feet wide road which could not

have been sold to the defendants. The 40 feet wide road is

part of Somasundaram Garden and intended for public use.

Appellants herein were defendants in the suit. By the

judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015, learned trial Judge 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022

came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had failed to establish

existence of 40 feet wide road. None of the documents

exhibited by the plaintiffs showed existence of such a road as

contended by them. On the contrary, there is a 12.9 feet wide

common passage in respect of which there is no dispute.

During the trial, plaintiffs had complained that defendants

were obstructing their way in the common passage. The suit

was accordingly decreed with the direction that the passage

shown in the suit schedule property is the public passage

having 12.9 feet width. Defendants were directed not to

obstruct the plaintiffs from using the common passage.

Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015

both appellants and respondent No.1/writ petitioner have

filed appeals. Insofar the appellants are concerned, they have

filed CCCA.No.190 of 2015 before this Court as against

CCCA.No.115 of 2015 filed by 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

The two appeals are pending before this Court without any

stay.

6. In spite of the above, respondent No.1/writ

petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.07.2022 4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022

before the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, North Zone,

Secunderabad, alleging that appellants had applied for

construction in the 40 feet road and such permission was

granted by the GHMC. He therefore requested the GHMC to

stop the appellants from making any construction on the 40

feet road. Alleging that there was inaction on the part of the

GHMC authorities in considering his representation dated

06.07.2022, the related writ petition came to be filed.

7. We are of the view that filing of the writ petition

was not only misconceived but was a mischievous act on the

part of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. There is already a

decree from the civil Court that instead of 40 feet wide road

there exist a road of only 12.9 feet width. This is of course

the subject matter of consideration before this Court in

appeal filed by both the parties. In such circumstances, 1st

respondent/writ petitioner could not have filed the

representation dated 06.07.2022 before the GHMC for

withdrawal of building permission granted to the appellants

allegedly over the non-existent 40 feet wide road and

thereafter to approach this Court for a direction to the GHMC 5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.725 of 2022

to consider such representation. In our considered view, this

is clearly untenable, factually as well as legally.

8. That being the position, question of considering

the representation of respondent No.1/writ petitioner dated

06.07.2022 does not arise.

9. Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022 is set aside.

Writ Petition No.32957 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, the Writ Appeal is allowed with costs of

Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid

by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to the Telangana State

Legal Services Authority within 30 days.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 07.11.2022 KL