Telangana High Court
Omran Bin Hasan Somali vs The Jalpally Municipality And 2 ... on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.37626 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;
"to issue any writ, order or direction more in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in passing
order dt.12-9-2022 vide Proc.No.G1/111310/1378/JALP/2022
cancelling the permission No 111310/JALP/0209/2021 in respect of
petitioner's plot admeasuring 111 sq yards in survey Nos.146/A,
147/A, 146/I, 147/I, 146/A/1, 146/E/2 and 146/E/3, 147/E/1, 147/E/2,
147/E/3 situated at Imam Enclave Balapur village and revenue
Mandal, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, without considering the
petitioner's reply and without affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of
principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pramod Singh submits
that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27-08-2022
stating that a civil suit in O.S.No.1157 of 2018 on the file of the District
Court, Ranga Reddy, is pending in respect of plot No.106 in
Sy.Nos.146 and 147 and as there is material suppression, directed him
to file a reply within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. He
submits that though the show cause notice is dated 27-08-2022, the
same was received by the petitioner on 08-09-2022 and thereafter, he
has submitted his reply dated 19-09-2022, which was acknowledged by
the respondent Municipality on 21-09-2022. Learned counsel submits
that in the said reply, the petitioner has stated that he has been
regularly paying the tax and electricity bills and he has also ownership
2 LK, J
W.P.No.37626 of 2022
certificate and he does not have any dispute with any person or
persons in private or any government sections. He submits that even
before considering his reply, the order impugned is passed
on 12-09-2022. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not a
party to the said suit and he is not aware of the pendency of the said
suit and hence, the question of suppression of fact does not arise.
3. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.3 Mr. D.
Raghavendra Rao submits that earlier, the unofficial respondent No.3
has come up before this Court by filing W.P.No.30142 of 2022 seeking
a relief not to accord any sanction in the light of the judgment
dated 08-11-2021 in W.P.No.11396 of 2019 without taking necessary
action based on the representations submitted by petitioner
dated 22-04-2019 and 30-05-2019 and also till the title dispute in
O.S.No.1157 of 2018 is disposed of and further, in the light of the order
dated 08-11-2021 in W.P.No.11396 of 2019, this Court, by order
dated 28-07-2022, has disposed of the said writ petition directing the
petitioner therein i.e., unofficial respondent No.3, to submit his
representation to the respondents and the respondents shall consider
the same in accordance with law. He submits that the unofficial
respondent No.3 has submitted his representation, wherein he has
categorically mentioned that the petitioner herein, without conversion of
the land from agriculture to non-agriculture and where there is no
layout, has obtained the permission. He further submits that the
3 LK, J
W.P.No.37626 of 2022
petitioner's vendor is a party to the declaratory suit and pending the
suit, the petitioner has purchased the property and all these facts were
suppressed by the petitioner. He submits that even in the reply, the
petitioner has not stated anything and as such, there is no illegality in
the order passed by the Municipality.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. N. Praveen
Kumar submits that the respondent Municipality has categorically
mentioned in the show cause notice about pendency of the suit and the
petitioner has conveniently not answered the same and hence, there is
no illegality in passing the order impugned which does not call for
interference by this Court.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the unofficial
respondent No.3 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.2 that the petitioner's reply is silent with regard to the
fact that he is not a party to the suit, which is mentioned in the show
cause notice. The order impugned has not dealt with the case of the
unofficial respondent No.3 and also with regard to the conversion of
land and that there is no layout. Hence, in the interest of both the
parties, this order impugned is set aside. The petitioner shall submit a
detailed explanation to the show cause notice dated 27-08-2022 within
one week from today and the respondent Municipality, after considering
the explanation of the petitioner as well as the representation of the
unofficial respondent No.3 and also the grounds that are raised, shall
4 LK, J
W.P.No.37626 of 2022
pass a detailed order in accordance with law and the entire exercise
shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order and till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against
the property of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
7. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition,
shall stand closed.
______________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
11th October, 2022
sj
