Telangana High Court
P.Narotham Reddy vs Smt.P.Bhagyalaxmi on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
I.A.No.1 of 2022
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No.386 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. P.Narotham Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant (party-in-person) and Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. We have also
heard Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
08.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing
of W.P.No.22128 of 2020 filed by respondent No.1 as the
writ petitioner.
3. Appellant has also filed an interlocutory application,
being I.A.No.1 of 2022, for condoning the delay of 36 days
in filing the writ appeal.
4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit objecting
to the prayer for condoning the delay wherein it is
contended that the delay is not 36 days, but is of 543 days.
5. Be that as it may, we find from the record that
respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition with the
grievance that Kakatiya Urban Development Authority
(KUDA) was not taking any action on her representation
dated 18.11.2020 for cancelling LRS proceedings dated
15.10.2020 granted in favour of the appellant (respondent
No.3 in the writ petition) in respect of property bearing
House No.1-1-114/3/A, Prashanth Nagar, Waddepally,
Warangal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the subject property').
6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by
respondent No.1 that though the subject property is
entangled in a series of litigation, nonetheless, KUDA had
granted LRS proceedings in favour of the appellant.
Representation submitted for cancellation of the same was
not being attended to.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for KUDA submitted
before the learned Single Judge that because of various
reasons, including the pandemic situation, the
representation could not be disposed of.
8. Having regard to the above, learned Single Judge vide
the order dated 08.12.2020 disposed of the writ petition in
the following manner:
In view of the above made submissions, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent - the
Vice Chairman, KUDA, Hanamkonda, to consider the
representation, dated 18.11.2020, submitted by the
petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention
that before passing any orders, the petitioner as well as
respondent No.3 shall be put on notice and afforded an
opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by
the respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the
parties.
9. From the above, we find that Vice Chairman of KUDA
has been directed to consider the representation of
respondent No.1 dated 18.11.2020 after putting on notice
appellant and respondent No.1 and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter to pass
necessary order in accordance with law within a period of
four weeks.
10. Though a view may be taken that learned Single
Judge ought to have issued notice to the appellant before
disposing of the writ petition, nonetheless, having regard to
the final relief granted, we are of the view that interest of
the appellant was duly protected by the learned Single
Judge.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
was suppression of material facts by respondent No.1
inasmuch as earlier writ petition filed by her was dismissed
by this Court. This was suppressed. On the other hand,
appellant has right, title and interest over the subject
property and therefore KUDA was fully justified in issuing
LRS proceedings dated 15.10.2020.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however,
submits that following the order dated 08.12.2020, KUDA
had issued notice to both the appellant as well as
respondent No.1 and thereafter had passed an order dated
29.07.2022 cancelling LRS dated 15.10.2020.
13. On due consideration, we are of the view that learned
Single Judge had only directed KUDA to consider the
representation of respondent No.1 but ensured that
appellant should also be heard before a decision thereon
was taken. Now after hearing the parties, KUDA has
passed a fresh order giving rise to a fresh cause of action.
It is open to the aggrieved person to assail such order
passed by KUDA in an appropriate proceeding. We express
no opinion on merit.
14. Therefore, both on the point of limitation as well as
on merit, we do not find any good reason to entertain the
appeal.
15. I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the writ appeal are accordingly
dismissed.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
19.01.2023
vs
