Telangana High Court
M. Prabhakar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4128 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not
taking any action on the complaints made by the petitioner on
18-01-2024 in respect of illegal construction and encroachment
made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the land of petitioner
admeasuring 484 sq. yards in Sy.No.818 situated at Moosapet,
Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as highly illegal,
arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice apart
from violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, with
a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to cancel the
building permission dated 29-12-2023 issued for the land in
H.No.12-10-92/2/2/1, to an extent of 820 sq. yards in
Sy.No.820/A situated at Moosapet, Kukatpally, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.Dhananjay
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri A.Vishveshwar Rao, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8, and
perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for
hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Petitioner contends that while he is the owner of land
admeasuring 484 sq. yards in Sy.No.818 situated at Moosapaet,
Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the unofficial
respondent Nos.5 to 7 taking advantage of the said land being
vacant and are also adjacent land owners in respect of house
bearing No.12-10-92/2/2/1 in Sy.No.820/A, had entered into a
development agreement with respondent No.8 by fabricating
documents with the support of their henchmen and approached
the respondent authorities and obtained building permission
dated 29-12-2023 for construction of 1 stilt + 4 upper floors to
an extent of 420.02 sq. meters while the registered document
bearing No.7142/2002 shows total area to be 820 sq. yards.
4. Petitioner further contends that the subject site for which
the unofficial respondents have obtained building permission
falls under buffer zone of Moosapet Nala and as such, no
permission can be granted.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that while petitioner is claiming
his land to be in Sy.No.818, the unofficial respondents had
applied and were granted building permission in respect of land
in Sy.No.820/A.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the total
extent of the land possessed by the unofficial respondent Nos.5
to 7 being 820 sq. yards equivalent to 685.22 sq. mts, the
permission was granted only in respect of 420 sq. meters thereby
leaving area of 265.5 sq. mts towards buffer zone.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
Authorities by causing due verification of prima facie title of
respondent Nos.5 to 7 represented by respondent No.8 had
granted building permission.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to
8 submits that the present Writ Petition, as filed by the petitioner,
is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner has
approached this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing the
fact that he has suffered an adverse order in O.S.No.216 of 2018.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to
8 further contends that respondent Nos.5 to 7 had approached the
respondent authorities and obtained permission only in respect of
land admeasuring 420 sq. mts out of 685.22 sq. mts leaving open
area of buffer zone of Moosapet Nala, wherein no construction is
permitted.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to
8 further submits that the land being claimed by the of petitioner
being in Sy.No.818 is not within the vicinity of land of
respondent Nos.7 and 8 in Sy.No.820/A and thus, the claim of
the petitioner of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 are adjacent
owners, is an incorrect statement.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to
7 further submits that the petitioner is in the habit of making
false and frivolous claims and on the basis of such untenable
claims, is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 over the said
property. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 further contends that when the
petitioner tried to interfere with his enjoyment of the property at
an earlier point of time, the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 had
tried to lodge a complaint with the concerned police, and as the
concerned police did not entertain the complaint of unofficial
respondents, the unofficial respondents had approached the
competent Civil Court by filing O.S.No.46 of 2018 for grant of
perpetual injunction and the petitioner herein, in spite of being
served with summons, remained ex parte therein.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to
8 further contends that on account of the petitioner remaining
ex parte in the above proceeding, judgment was passed on
22-06-2018 and thereafter a decree was also drawn up in respect
of the schedule property.
13. Thus, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.5 to 8 contends that the present Writ Petition is clearly an
abuse of process of law.
14. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
15. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ
Petition does not mention about the proceedings that have been
initiated by the unofficial respondents against the petitioner vide
O.S.No.46 of 2018. Though petitioner had contended that the
judgment and decree in the aforesaid proceedings are ex parte, it
is not shown to this Court of the petitioner taking any steps to get
the said ex parte order set aside. Thus, it is to be noted that the
aforesaid order passed by the Court of civil jurisdiction in
O.S.No.46 of 2018 had attained finality.
16. The petitioner having suffered an adverse order in the
aforesaid civil proceedings, after a lapse of nearly 5 years had
come up with the present Writ Petition making a claim that the
unofficial respondents are making illegal construction without
obtaining any permission and also in buffer zone of Moosapet
Nala, which claim of the petitioner, on account of the
submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel of
respondent Nos.5 to 7 obtaining permission for construction on
29-12-2023, is proved to be incorrect statement.
17. Further, taking note of the fact that total extent of land of
unofficial respondent being 685.22 sq. mts and since the building
permission obtained is only 420.02 sq. mts, this Court is of the
view that the claim of the petitioner of the construction being
made in the buffer zone of Moonscape Nala is also without any
basis, more so when no material is placed before this Court to
accept the said contention.
18. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the
present Writ Petition, as filed, is devoid of merit and is liable to
dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.30,000/-.
19. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is
dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the High Court
Legal Services Committee within a period of four (4) weeks.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:18.03.2024
Vsv
