Telangana High Court
Boorla Sandeep Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.7242 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5
in not taking action on the illegal and unauthorized construction made by
the 6th respondent in the setback area in deviation of the sanctioned plan,
in Plot Nos.33 and 34 (H.Nos.12-8-85/33 and 12-8-85/34) in
Sy.Nos.918/A/2 and 918/1A admeasuring 668 square yards situated at
Kaithalapur, Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
pursuant to the petitioners' representations dt.12.02.2024 and
11.03.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14
and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions
of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the TS-
bPASS Act, 2020.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing
for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for
hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the
admission stage and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of
the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for
adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
4. Petitioners contend that they are the residents of an apartment,
viz., 'S.R.Garuda Apartments', consisting of Cellar + Stilt + 5 upper floors;
and that the 6th respondent, who purchased open Plot Nos.33 and 34 in
Sy.Nos.918/A/2 and 918/1A admeasuring 668 square yards situated at
Kaithalapur, Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
had taken up construction in the aforesaid plots purportedly claiming to
have obtained building permission from the respondents-authorities.
5. Petitioners further contend that the 6th respondent is proceeding
with the construction in the aforesaid plots, which are adjacent to the
petitioners' apartment, in deviation of the sanctioned plan without leaving
prescribed setbacks as per G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012 in a hasty
manner.
6. Petitioners further contend that on noticing the aforesaid
construction being made by the 6th respondent in violation of the building
rules, the petitioners had approached the respondents-authorities and
submitted representations dt.12.02.2024 and 11.03.2024 bringing to the
notice of the authorities of the said unauthorized construction and sought
for action against the construction being proceeded with to bring the
building in conformity with the sanctioned plan.
7. Petitioners further contend that in spite of the petitioners
approaching the respondents-authorities and submitting representations,
no action is taken, and on the other hand, the unofficial respondent is
proceeding with the construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan
rapidly, and if permitted the same to go on, it would severely affect the
rights of the petitioners to free air and light, being the neighbours of the
subject property.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the 6th respondent had obtained
building permission, vide permit order dt.08.12.2023 for construction of
stilt for parking + 5 upper floors; and that the authorities, while granting
permission, have specified the setbacks that are required to be maintained
by the 6th respondent, while proceeding with the construction.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on receiving the
complaint from the 2nd petitioner dt.12.02.2024, the respondents-
authorities have caused inspection of the subject site and issued a show
cause notice dt.17.02.2024, whereby, while directing the 6th respondent to
stop the construction activity, called upon him to submit his explanation
along with documentary evidence within a period of seven days.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the unofficial
respondent had received the aforesaid notice, did not submit any
reply/explanation, and thus, the respondents-authorities had passed a
Speaking Order dt.26.02.2024 holding the said construction being made
by the 6th respondent to be an unauthorized construction and directed him
to remove the same within 15 days, failing with, the 6th respondent was
informed that the authorities would take action to remove the same
departmentally.
11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the
respondents-authorities passing the aforesaid Speaking Order, the
unofficial respondent had approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and
filed a suit, vide O.S.No.111 of 2024 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District at Kukatpally, and obtained an order of status quo against the
respondents-authorities, vide order dt.27.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.27 of
2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2024; and that presently the suit stands posted to
22.03.2024.
12. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is on account of
the order of status quo, that has been granted by the concerned Civil
Court, the authorities could not take steps to enforce the Speaking Order
dt.26.02.2024; and that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to
get the order of status quo vacated through Standing Counsel appearing
before the concerned Court and on the aforesaid order of status quo
getting vacated, the authorities would take steps to enforce the Speaking
Order already passed.
13. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
14. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since, the
respondents-authorities were prevented from enforcing the order
Speaking Order dt.26.02.2024, on account of the order of status quo
dt.27.02.2024 granted in I.A.No.27 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2024 by the
Court of Civil jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the respondents-
authorities cannot be said to be not acting upon the complaint submitted
by the petitioners with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction.
15. However, having regard to the fact that a Division Bench of this
Court in M unicipal Corporation of Hyderabad v/ s. Philom ena
Education Foundation 1 , had held that an order of status quo should not
be granted in respect of statutory notices, 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, this Court is of the
view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to bring the
aforesaid judgment and the circulars to the notice of the concerned Civil
2008 (2) ALD 1
Court to get the order of status quo vacated. Further, it is to be noted that
on the aforesaid order of status quo being vacated by the concerned Civil
Court, the respondents-authorities shall take steps to enforce the
Speaking Order dt.26.02.2024 in an expeditious manner. Liberty is also
granted to the petitioners to implead themselves in the aforesaid suit
pending before the concerned Civil Court and get the order of status quo
vacated by bringing the above judgment and circulars to the notice of the
concerned Court.
16. Subject to above observation and liberty reserved, the Writ Petition
is disposed of. No order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:20.03.2024
GJ
