Telangana High Court
Mohammad Ahmed Pasha vs The State Of Telangana on 11 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No. 3884 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents.
2. Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of plot No.694, admeasuring 200 Sq.yards, in
Survey No.233/E situated at Karthikeya Nagar,
Teegalaguttapally Village, Karimnagar District, on the
strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.652 of
1995 dated 18.12.1995. He is in possession of the said
property. 4th respondent is making construction over the said
property. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that
4th respondent has obtained permission from 2nd respondent -
Karimnagar Municipal Corporation Karimnagar District, rep.
by its Commissioner, vide building permit order dated
08.01.2024. The said construction of 4th respondent is illegal
2 KL, J
and unauthorised. Therefore, petitioner has submitted
representation dated 20.01.2025 to 2nd respondent with a
request to take action against 4th respondent. Despite receiving
and acknowledging the said representation, 2nd respondent did
not act upon the same. Therefore, aggrieved by the said
inaction of 2nd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ
Petition.
3. In the writ affidavit and also representation dated
20.01.2025, petitioner alleged that 4th respondent is making
construction in the aforesaid plot belonging to him and
4th respondent has obtained building permit order dated
08.01.2024 from 2nd respondent under TG-bPASS Act, 2020,
by way of self-certification and self-declaration. Perusal of the
photographs filed by petitioner would reveal that
4th respondent is proceeding with the construction as per
building permit order dated 08.01.2024. Thus, the said facts
would reveal that there are disputes between petitioner and
4th respondent with regard to title over the subject property.
However, 2nd respondent will consider only three aspects viz.,
3 KL, J
1) misrepresentation/ suppression of facts; 2) false statement,
if any, made by 4th respondent while obtaining building permit
order dated 08.01.2024 and 3) construction in deviation to the
building permit order dated 08.01.2024. However,
2nd respondent cannot consider and adjudicate inter se disputes
between petitioner and 4th respondent. It is the civil Court
which is having power to adjudicate the same. Therefore,
petitioner has to approach the civil Court and establish his
right over the subject property. Then, he has to approach
2nd respondent with request to implement order/judgment, if
any, passed by the competent civil Court. It is not the case of
petitioner that 4th respondent has obtained building permit
order dated 08.01.2024 by way of misrepresentation of facts
and is proceeding with construction in deviation to the said
building permit order.
4. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed
granting liberty to petitioner to approach the competent civil
Court and obtain order against 4th respondent and thereafter, he
4 KL, J
shall approach 2nd respondent seeking implementation of the
said order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
11th FEBRUARY, 2025.
kvni
