Telangana High Court
Kalvakuntla Rathna Kumari vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.142 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Putta Krishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the final order
dated 16.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2.
3. Petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of
the house bearing No.9-117, situated at Padmavathi
Nagar, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nirmal District,
presently under respondent No.2 - Municipality (for
short, 'subject property'). The subject property was
constructed after duly obtaining permission from the
then Gram Panchayat Secretary, Khanapur Panchayat.
KL,J
W.P.No.142 of 2025
Petitioner is in possession of the subject property and
paying property tax to respondent No.2. Even then,
respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner from the
subject property without following due procedure laid
down under law. Therefore, she has filed a writ petition
vide W.P.No.17081 of 2022. When the said writ petition
came up for hearing, on 01.04.2022, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Municipality, on
instructions, submitted to this Court that respondent
No.2 - Municipality is removing the encroachments on
the existing 100 feet road and they will follow due process
of law. Recording the said submission of learned
Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.2 -
Municipality, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition
directing respondent No.2 - Municipality not to interfere
with the petitioner's possession over the subject property
without following due process of law. Two and half years
thereafter, respondent No.2 - Municipality has issued
notice, dated 19.11.2024 to the petitioner to submit
KL,J
documents such as Sanctioned Building Permission copy
and ownership documents and other documents, if any,
in respect of H.No.9-117, situated at Padmavathi Nagar,
Khanapur, within seven (7) days. Petitioner has not
submitted documents vide its reply, dated 25.11.2024.
4. Thereafter respondent No.2 has passed the
impugned final order, dated 16.12.2024 stating that
petitioner made construction by encroaching 52.6 Sq.
yards of Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station 100 feet wide
road. Report submitted by AD, Survey and Land Records,
Nirmal district was relied upon. The site is situated at
Mohammadiaya Colony, Khanapur and it is, to be
removed. Petitioner failed to give valid explanation to the
notice, dated 19.11.2024. Therefore, respondent No.2 -
Municipality directed the petitioner to remove the un-
authorized construction within 15 days. Challenging the
said final order, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
KL,J
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that vide notice, dated 19.11.2024, respondent No.2
requested the petitioner to furnish documents and
petitioner has not furnished documents. But, respondent
No.2 did not state about the alleged deviated portion or
un-authorized construction specifically in the said notice.
Without considering the documents and explanation,
dated 25.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner,
respondent No.2 has issued final order, dated
16.12.2024. The same is in violation of procedure laid
down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. He
has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the
following two (2) judgments:
1. Musunuru Rajani v. Vijayawada Municipal
Corporation, Vijayawada 1
2. Common order, dated 25.04.2022 passed by this
Court in W.P.Nos.27201 of 2021 and 1986 of 2022.
2005 (3) ALD 87
KL,J
6. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced
written instructions of respondent No.2, wherein it is
stated that respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated
19.11.2024 and petitioner failed to submit explanation
properly. On instructions, he would further submit that
entire construction is illegal. Therefore, respondent No.2
has issued notice, dated 19.11.2024 and considered the
reply, dated 25.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner
before passing final order. Therefore, there is no
irregularity.
7. As discussed supra, vide order dated 11.04.2022 in
W.P.No.17950 of 2022, this Court directed the
respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's
possession over the subject properties without following
due process of law. Therefore, respondent No.2 has to
follow the procedure laid down under the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019 by specifically mentioning the
KL,J
deviated portion of the construction in the notice, dated
19.11.2024. Without mentioning the deviated portion or
un-authorized construction specifically in the notice,
dated 19.11.2024, respondent No.2 requested the
petitioner to furnish certain documents. Petitioner has
not submitted copies of documents to respondent No.2.
In fact, petitioner has to submit permission obtained by
her from the then Gram Panchayath. Even now, she has
not filed the permission obtained by her from the then
Gram Panchayat, Khanapur. She has filed only renewal
proceedings.
8. Though the petitioner is contending that she has
obtained permission from the then Gram Panchayat,
Khanapur, she has not submitted the same to
respondent No.2 along with their reply, dated 25.11.2024
and she has not filed copy of the same before this Court.
9. As discussed supra, respondent No.2 - Municipality
did not specifically mention that the petitioner has made
KL,J
construction by encroaching into 168.6 Sq. yards in the
notice, dated 19.11.2024. Now, in the final order, dated
16.12.2024, respondent No.2 - Municipality directed the
petitioner to remove the un-authorized construction
made by the petitioner encroaching 52.6 Sq. yards i.e.,
Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station. There is also
reference to the report submitted by AD, Survey and
Land Records, Nirmal district.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that
the said report was behind back of the petitioner and
while conducting the alleged survey no opportunity was
given to her.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the entire action
of respondent No.2 in issuing notice, dated 19.11.2024
and final order, dated 16.12.2024 is in violation of
principles of natural justice, also the procedure laid down
under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and also
the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two
KL,J
(2) judgments. Therefore, both the notice, dated
19.11.2024 and final order, dated 16.12.2024 of
respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside and accordingly
set aside.
12. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4
to conduct survey afresh by putting the petitioner on
notice and affording her an opportunity. Liberty is also
granted to respondents to issue fresh notice to the
petitioner specifically mentioning the details/ particulars
of the un-authorized construction and deviated portion,
granting seven (7) days time to the petitioner to submit
explanation. Thereafter take action, if any, against the
petitioner herein. Respondent No.2 shall complete the
aforesaid entire exercise within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
KL,J
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
January 03, 2025
gvl
