Telangana High Court
Sri Siddapuram Raja Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.55 and 57 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Ravinder Reddy Muppu, learned counsel
for the appellant; Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration for respondent No.1; Mr. Praveen Kumar
Veerjala, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 to
5; and Mr. L.Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondents
No.6 and 7.
2. W.A.No.55 of 2023 is directed against the order
passed in W.P.No.46198 of 2018, whereas W.A.No.57 of
2023 is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.45059
of 2018. Both the said writ petitions filed by the appellant
as the writ petitioner were disposed of by the learned
Single Judge by the common order dated 26.07.2022.
3. As a matter of fact, the first writ petition, being
W.P.No.45059 of 2018, was filed for a direction to
respondents No.2 to 5 to take action on the representation
dated 14.11.2018 whereby appellant had brought to the
notice of the said respondents alleged unauthorised
construction carried out by respondents No.6 and 7 by
raising three upper floors over Plot No.38 in Survey
Nos.420, 422, 423 and 431 situated at Radha Krishna
Nagar, Attapur, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District
(hereinafter referred to as, the subject land). It appears
that respondents No.2 to 5 had issued notice dated
15.11.2018 to respondents No.6 and 7 under Section 636
of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
(briefly, 'the GHMC Act' hereinafter), for demolition of the
unauthorised construction.
4. Alleging lack of follow up action on the part of the
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)
pursuant to the notice dated 15.11.2018, the second writ
petition, being W.P.No.46198 of 2018, came to be filed.
5. Against the notice dated 15.11.2018, respondents
No.6 and 7 had approached the civil Court by filing
O.S.No.267 of 2018 wherein status quo order was passed
by the civil Court.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted
before the learned Single Judge that because of status quo
order, GHMC had not proceeded with the demolition.
6.1. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that
despite the status quo order, respondents No.6 and 7 were
proceeding with the illegal construction.
6.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
No.6 and 7 submitted before the learned Single Judge that
respondents No.6 and 7 had purchased the property from
the father of the appellant in the year 1980 which is
disputed by the appellant. Appellant has even filed a
criminal case and thereafter filed a civil suit, being
O.S.No.1299 of 2018, on the file of learned VIII Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking
declaration of title and recovery of possession, but no
injunction was granted by the civil Court in respect of the
subject land. It was thereafter that the related writ
petitions were filed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned
Single Judge took the view that the disputing parties had
misused the forum of the writ Court and had filed the
related writ petitions, further holding that appellant lacked
bona fide to institute the writ proceedings. Consequently,
both the writ petitions were disposed of.
8. In the hearing today, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC submits that because of the status quo order
granted by the civil Court, GHMC and its officials have not
interfered with the construction carried out by respondents
No.6 and 7.
9. Submissions made have been considered.
10. It is on record that GHMC had issued notice to
respondents No.6 and 7 under Section 636 of the GHMC
Act on 15.11.2018 for demolition of unauthorised
construction. Against such demolition notice, respondents
No.6 and 7 has approached the civil Court in O.S.No.267 of
2018 wherein a status quo order was passed. When a
status quo order is passed, it does not mean that GHMC
and its officials shall adopt a hands-off approach and allow
respondents No.6 and 7 to carry on with the construction
rendering the demolition notice redundant. Status quo
means the status as on the date of passing the order to be
maintained.
11. That being the position, we direct that till
continuance of status quo order in O.S.No.267 of 2018,
GHMC and its officials shall not allow respondents No.6
and 7 to carry on any further construction over the subject
land.
12. This disposes of both the writ appeals.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
11.01.2023
vs
