Telangana High Court
Maddhi Divakar Reddy vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 12 October, 2023
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.28684 of 2023
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners had sought for issue of a Writ
of Mandamus declaring the impugned Shortfall Intimation Letter in
Lr.No.006237/GHMC/3106/SLP1/2023-BP dated 08.09.2023, issued by the
respondents, as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, with a
consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith reconsider the
building application made by the petitioners on 27.05.2023 for grant of
building permission for construction of 1 Cellar + 1 Stilt + 5 Upper Floors
in the land bearing Sy.No.41/12 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed,
learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and
learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development appearing for respondent No.3 and with their consent, the
Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of
admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners
had approached the respondents-authorities and sought for sanction of a
building plan by making an application on 27.05.2023 and in response to
the said application, the respondents-authorities have issued Shortfall
Intimation Letter dated 08.09.2023 noting shortfalls which the petitioners
are required to comply with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the
petitioners will comply with all the other shortfalls noted in the Shortfall
Intimation Letter, except the shortfall noted with regard to requirement of
obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authorities;
and that the said objection raised by the respondents is no longer res
integra, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.403 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing the attention of this
Court to the order dated 08.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.24978 of 2023
would submit that on the petitioners complying with the other shortfalls
noted, the respondents-authorities be directed to process the application
without insisting on production of NOC from the revenue authorities.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the written
instructions under the signature of the DCP(HO), GHMV, dated
04.10.2023.
7. By the said written instructions, while reiterating all the shortfalls
noted, including the objection with regard to the intimation given by the
Collector to place the land in Sy.Nos.41/12 and 13 in the prohibitory list,
the respondents-authorities have also stated that there is a claim from
another applicant in respect of the land in Sy.No.41/11 situated at
Khanamet Village, for construction of a compound wall and also there is
overlapping upon the site to which the petitioners had sought for
permission.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. Firstly, it is to be noted that the additional points which are raised
by way of written instructions do not form part of the shortfall intimation
letter, since it is settled position of law that the authorities cannot
supplement their reasoning by way of counters or additional counter-
affidavit or their submissions and that the reasons mentioned in the order
ought to speak itself, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh Gill v/s. The Chief Election Commissioner 1, and
thus, this Court is of the view that the objection now taken by the
respondents in the written instructions stating that there is overlapping as
there is a claim from another applicant, cannot be accepted as valid
reason justifying the action of the respondents in not granting building
permission, since the same was not put to the petitioners in the shortfall
intimation letter.
(1978) 2 SCC 405
10. Further, this Court, in similar circumstances in W.P.No.24978 of
2023 directed the respondents-authorities to process the building
permission application without reference to the NOC requiring to obtain
from the revenue authorities. Since the petitioners are similarly placed and
in order to maintain parity, this Court is of the view that the respondents
are to be directed to process the application submitted by the petitioners
subject to the petitioners complying with other objections in terms of the
order in W.P.24798 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023.
11. For reasons alike as were stated in the order passed in
W.P.No.24798 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023, and in terms thereof, this Writ
Petition is disposed of.
12. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order in W.P.No.24978
of 2023 dated 08.09.2023 to this order.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:12.10.2023
GJ
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.28684 of 2023
12.10.2023
GJ
