M/S. Sravanthi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs The State Of A.P.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 5421 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Sravanthi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs The State Of A.P., on 11 September, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                   AT HYDERABAD
        MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
             TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

                            :PRESENT:
   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
                       WP .NO:12023 of 2014
Between:
M/s. Sravanthi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Regd. Office at Flat
No.301, United Elite, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills Post,
Hyderabad-33, Rep. by its Managing Director
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                                AND

1 The State of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat,
   Hyderabad.
2 The Station House Officer, Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad.
3 M.A.Gaffar, S/o. late Md.Abdul Waheed, R/o.H.No.8-3-939,
   Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad
                                                     .....Respondents

WP. NO. 12023 OF 2014:

               Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein,
the High Court may be pleased to issue such appropriate writ, order
or direction more so particularly one in the nature of mandamus
declaring the action of the 2nd respondent and his subordinates in
interfering and stopping the construction activity in the land
admeasuring 12,951 sq. yards out of Sy.No.20 (new), T.S.No.4/2
situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, though all necessary
permissions from the concerned departments were obtained by the
petitioner and the land owner, on the basis of baseless complaints of
the 3rd respondent, is not only arbitrary and illegal but also without
authority of law;

WPMP. NO. 15108 OF 2014:

               Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. Praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in W.P. the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent and his subordinates not to
either interfere or stop the construction work in the land admeasuring
12,951 sq.yards in Sy.No.20 (new) T.S.No.4/2 situated at
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, which is being undertaken by the
petitioner in accordance with the building permission granted by
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, pending disposal of the
writ petition.
               The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the
petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments
of Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the G.P. for
Home, for the Respondents No. 1 & 2, the Court made the following.

ORDER:

"The Life Insurance Corporation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad and one Sri M.A. Gaffar, the 3rd respondent herein had some disputes concerning a piece of land situated at Yellareddyguda of Hyderabad City. Consequently, the Life Insurance Corporation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited instituted O.S.No.311 of 1980 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By judgment and decree passed by that Court on 11.03.1997, the suit was decreed. The CCCA Nos.36 of 1998 and 58 of 1998 preferred by the family members of the third respondent before this Court has failed on 24.11.1999. Then the matter was carried in appeals, LPA Nos.150&151/2000. They were dismissed on 27.09.2000 by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was further carried to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 12.01.2006 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6747 and 6748 of 2001 declared that no interference is called for in the appeals and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Thus, the right title and interest of the Life Insurance Corporation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited in the land has attained finality. Thereafter, the said society entered into a development agreement on 01.01.2011 with M/s. Sravanthi Constructions Private Limited-the writ petitioner and M/s. Siri Sai Constructions, Hyderabad, a partnership firm, for purpose of developing the land. It appears, the Life Insurance Corporation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited has filed an application on 29.11.2012 before the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for purpose of construction of a building at the site in question.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in its File No.81411/29/11/2012 dated 21.06.2013 granted a building permission for construction of 3 cellars, ground + 3 upper floors. The permit also required the constructions to be commenced before 20.06.2014 and they should be completed before 20.06.2016. It is further stated that the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City through proceedings bearing No. L&O/M7/1459/2013 dated 26.08.2013 granted a license in favour of Sri Mohd. Yunus Patel (Patel Mining Services) of Vanasthalipuram, Hyderbad for undertaking controlled blasting operations at the site in question and the license granted was said to be valid for a period of three months commencing from 26.08.2013 upto 24.11.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that, after successfully completing the controlled blasting operations at the site in question now, the earth excavation civil engineering work is undertaken using Tata Hitachi Machinery. The third respondent seems to have lodged a complaint with the second respondent-Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad stating that these operations undertaken by the petitioner are wholly unjust and that they are illegal. The police have entertained a doubt about the usage of machinery and consequently addressed both the Mandal Revenue Officer-cum- Tahsildar as well as the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as to whether any special permission is needed for using the earth excavation and other related machinery for undertaking construction activity at the site in question. It appears, the Tahsildar, Khairtabad Mandal through his communication dated 11.04.2014 has informed the second respondent, Station House Officer that the building construction activity is proceeding as per the permission obtained from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Sofaras, using Tata Hitachi Machinery, the Tahsildar made it clear that it is the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation which is the competent authority to grant any such permission. Whereas, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation through its letter No.B/952/TPS/HO/GHMC dated 09.04.2014 made it clear to the Station House officer, Panjagutta that GHMC has accorded permission for construction of 3 cellars, one ground + 3 upper floors through a building permit dated 21.06.2013 and more importantly, it made it clear that no permission is required from GHMC for using machinery mentioned in the letter of the police. Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of this clear and categoric information made available to the police by the concerned authorities, still the police are not allowing the earth excavating and other machinery to be used by the petitioner at the site in question all because of the series of complaints lodged by the third respondent. As a result, it is complained by Sri Sreedhar that construction activity has been stopped.

When once the GHMC, the competent authority has accorded the necessary building permission and solong as the constructions are carried out strictly in accordance therewith, the police have no role to play and stop constructions. In fact, the police have sought for clarifications from the revenue establishment of the State Government as well as from the GHMC. GHMC has made it very clear as on 09.04.2014 itself that no special permission is required for using earth excavating machinery while undertaking the constructions. In this view of the matter, the 2nd respondent shall not cause any hindrance to the petitioner from undertaking any construction activity at the site in question, all at the instance of the third respondent who is the unsuccessful party in the civil litigation which ended in the Supreme Court against him. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed not to unnecessarily cause any hindrance or prevent the petitioner from carrying the constructions in accordance with the building permit granted in its favour by the GHMC. It is for the GHMC and its inspecting officials to ensure that the petitioner shall execute the work strictly in accordance with the building permit granted.

Therefore, admit.

Rule Nisi. Call for records.

Notice returnable in four weeks.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Station House Officer, Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 M.A.Gaffar, S/o. late Md.Abdul Waheed, R/o.H.No.8-3-939, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad (addressees 1 to 3 BY RPAD)

4. Two CCs to G.P for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri Hari Sreedhar, Advocate (OPUC)

6. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

AB DRAFTED ON 28-4-2014

NRRJ DATE: 21-4-2014

ORDER

WP. NO. 12023 OF 2014 AND WPMP. NO. 15108 OF 2014

DIRECTION