Telangana High Court
Indira Kumari vs The District Collector, ... on 8 November, 2022
Bench: K. Sarath
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.17322 of 2008
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by
way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents
in interfering into the construction work of the petitioner in
Plot No.3, Sy.No.74/9, East Marredpally village,
Secunderabad as per building permission vide permit
No.158/51 of 2008, in File
No.1711/TSP/SC/NZ/GHMC/N6/2008 obtained her as
illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and
possessor of Plot No.3, Sy.No.74/9, admeasuring 333.08
Sq.Meters situated at East Marredpally village,
Secunderabad. It is the grievance of the petitioner that
though the said property is the private property owned by
her and she obtained valid permission vide permit no.
No.158/51 of 2008, in File
No.1711/TSP/SC/NZ/GHMC/N6/2008 from the Greater
::2::
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for construction of a
building in the said plot, the respondents are causing
interference with her construction over the subject
property.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for
the respondents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in
a similar subject matter, this Court disposed of
W.P.No.11562 of 2008, dated 29.06.2011; W.P.No.7288 of
2008, 8200 of 2008 dated 30.06.2011; W.P.No.11907 of
2008 dated, 18.07.2011 and W.P.No.11562 of 2008
dated.29.06.2011, directing the respondents not to
interfere with the constructions of the petitioners therein.
5. It is not in dispute that with regard to the subject
property, the respondents have already filed LGC No.167 of
1997 before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, alleging that the petitioner is
::3::
a land grabber. It is stated that the said LGC was
dismissed, as against which, the respondents have carried
the matter in Writ Petition being W.P.No.19106 of 2010
before this Court. However, in the said LGC No.167 of
1997, by virtue of the very claim of the respondents, the
possession of the petitioner over the plot in question is
admitted. It is to be noticed that as per permit No.158/51
of 2008 issued by the competent authority i.e. Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner has
proceeded with the construction work in the subject
property.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to
direct the respondents not to interfere with the
constructions covered under valid permit No.158/51 of
2008, issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot
No.3, Sy.No.74/9, East Maredpally village, Secunderabad.
However, it is made clear that such constructions shall be
subject to the final orders in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, which
is filed by the respondents against the judgment passed in
::4::
LGC No.167 of 1997 on the file of Special Court under A.P.
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.
6. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall no order as to costs.
__________________
K.SARATH, J
08.11.2022
trr
