Telangana High Court
Althuru Ravi Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.8879 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to
declare the inaction of respondents No.2 to 4 on the
complaint/representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner,
dt.29.01.2024, against the illegal structures of 4 floors raised by the
unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 in the land admeasuring 150 sq.
yards each situated at H.No.1-10-334, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet,
Secunderabad, in contravention of the building permission without
leaving any setbacks, as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, and with the consent of
the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for
hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal and the lis involved in
this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial
respondents No.5 to 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present
Writ Petition.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in
brief, is that the unofficial respondents have commenced
construction of building consisting of four floors without obtaining
any permission/sanction from the respondents-authorities; and that
he had submitted a representation, dt.29.01.2024, to the
respondents-authorities bringing to their notice of the aforesaid
unauthorized and illegal construction being made, and sought for
initiation of action.
5. Petitioner further contends that in spite of more than two
months having passed by, no action is taken on the representation
submitted him, while the unofficial respondents are proceeding with
the unauthorized and illegal construction unabatedly.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No.2 to 4 has placed before this Court written
instructions along with the copy of proceedings that have been
initiated by the authorities against the unauthorized and illegal
construction being made by the unofficial respondents. The same is
taken on record.
7. By the written instructions, it is stated that the unofficial
respondents having obtained building permission for their respective
portions in the premises bearing H.No.1-10-334, Brahmanwadi,
Begumpet, Secunderabad, proceeded with the construction in
deviation of the sanction plan; that the respondents-authorities on
noticing the aforesaid construction being made in deviation of the
sanction plan, have initiated action by issuing show-cause notice to
the unofficial respondents on 23.01.2024; and that as no
explanation/reply was filed, the authorities have passed Speaking
Orders on 05.03.2024.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
No.2 to 4 on the basis of the aforesaid written instructions further
submits that the unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 on being served
with the Speaking Orders whereby the construction being made by
them was held to be unauthorized and illegal construction, have
approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing separate suits vide
OS.Nos.27, 31 and 32 of 2024 and obtained status quo order,
dt.23.02.2024 in IA.No.243 of 2024 in OS.No.27 of 2024, and
injunction orders dt.13.03.2024 in IA.No.265 of 2024 in OS.No.32 of
2024, and dt.07.03.2024 in IA.No.1425 of 2024 in OS.No.31 of 2024,
respectively.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that due to the
aforesaid orders of injunction and status quo granted by the Court of
Civil jurisdiction, the respondent-authorities are unable to proceed
with the enforcement of the speaking orders, dt.05.03.2024.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
respondent-authorities are taking steps to get the aforesaid interim
orders vacated by filing their written statement/counters for the
concerned Civil Court.
11. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel submits that on
the aforesaid orders of injunction/status quo getting vacated, the
authorities would take further action in the matter for enforcement of
the Speaking Orders, whereby the construction being made by the
unofficial respondents has already been held to be unauthorized and
illegal construction and more so, the permissions for such
constructions having been obtained by misrepresentation and
suppression of facts.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Since, the respondents-authorities have initiated action against
the unauthorized and illegal construction being complained of by the
petitioner, even before the petitioner approaching the said authority,
by issuing a show-cause notice, dt.23.01.2024, and thereafter
passing a Speaking Order, dt.05.03.2024, holding the said
construction to be unauthorized and illegal, this Court is of the view
that there has been no inaction on the part of the respondents-
authorities.
14. However, it is to be noted that against the aforesaid Speaking
Order passed by the official respondents, the unofficial respondents
having approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and obtained order
of status quo/injunction by filing separate suits, the respondents-
authorities were prevented from taking steps for enforcement of the
aforesaid Speaking Order.
15. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has stated to this Court that the respondents-authorities
are taking steps to get the aforesaid orders of status quo and
injunction vacated, it is to be noted that the impugned order being an
order passed by the authorities in exercise of their powers under the
Act, in discharge of their statutory functions, a Division Bench of this
Court had an occasion to deal with the Courts granting order of
status quo/injunction against the orders passed under the statute,
particularly dealing with unauthorized and illegal construction being
interfered by passing an order of status quo, in the case of Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad v/s. Philomena Education
Foundation 1, and the said judgment is reiterated by the High Court
by issuing Office Order, vide Circular dt.20.02.2017 in ROC.No.7/
Reg.Judl/2017, which was yet again reiterated in Circular
dt.08.11.2023 in ROC.No.14/Reg.Judl/2023, whereby Civil Courts
were directed to exercise caution while granting order of status quo.
16. Since, position of law has already been laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid judgment and as has been brought to the notice of
the Judicial Officers by the High Court by issuing circulars, this
Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities should be
2008 (2) ALD 1
directed to take steps by filing counters and vacate petitions in the
aforesaid suits instituted by the unofficial respondents against the
Speaking Order dt.05.03.2024 and take steps to get the said status
quo and injunction orders vacated and thereafter take steps to
enforce the Speaking Order dt.05.03.2024, in an expeditious manner.
17. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ
Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
08th April, 2024.
gra
