Muddamalla Karuna vs The State of Telangana and anothers

\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 't8469 OF 2022 1.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2.

Th6 Jagtial Municipality, Rtip. by its Commissioner, Jagtial, ,rn,,r.l.RL1rJB,*o=nr" Petition under Article 226 ol |he constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent' vide No.G1/2ggi2022,datedlTlo3l2o22,asillegalarbitraryandunreasonableandin gross violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act' 2019 and consequently sefaside the same AND IA NO: 10F 2022 on 151 CPC PraYing that in the circumstances stated in Petitron under Secti the High Court may be Pleased to the affidavit filed in support of the petition' suspend the impugned Proceedings bearing No.

No'G1/299/2022' dated 17lO3t2O22,of the 2nd respondent' pending disposal of the writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D' BHASKAR REDDY GP FOR MUN ICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & Counsel for ResPondent No' 1: URBAN DEVE LOPMENT lVluddamalla Karuna, D/o. late Shanti Kumar @ Shanthaiah, aged about 62 years,Occ.

Retired Employee.

R/o.

H.No.

7-3-132A, Mission C'om"pound, Jagtial Town and District ...PETrroNER c o u n s e I f o r R e s p o n d e n t N o' 2 : :t' S I Tf""-t El\| [i,Y flt \he Coutmade \he lo\\ovr g: ORDER Between: HON'BLE SMT.

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI \I/RIT PETITION No.lA469 of 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 2.d respondent vide No.G 1/ 299 12022 dated 17 .O3. ed 17 .O3.2O22 whereby the building permission obtained by the petitioner is revoked under Section 176, IZZ, IZA, 181 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 as illega_l and arbitrary.

2 Mr.

D.

Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearlng on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has applied for construction of a residential building consisting of Ground Floor + one upper floor in an open land admeasuring Ac.0.O2guntas out of H.No.7-3- 132 situated at Mission Compound, Jagtia-l through TS_bPASS by filing an application dated 24.06.2021.

He submits that he has paid necessary fees and respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 14.O2.2021 has granted letter of approval for commencement of work and petitioner started construction.

He submits that at the time of making application, the petitioner has enclosed all the relevant documents for granting permission and while the matter stood so, the respondent C( ff ::::j:::",",T[::;_: sh.w cause n.,ice s siven a compraint "l* n', that one M. lainst him alleging = W.P.No.l8469 of 2022 that he has obtained building perrnission by misrepresentation and false declaration while making an application.

He submits that the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on O4.O3.2O22 categorically mentioning that he has submitted application for grant of building permission over the vacant plot which he has got by way of Family Settlement Deed dated 26.03.1996 and also along with the said reply to the show cause notice, he has enclosed all the relevant documents which shows that the petitioner is owner of the said property' He submits that while making application dated 24'06'2021 through TS-bPASS, in title box, the house number instead of mentioning as 7-3-13212, lhe petitioner has mentioned as 7-3-132 and it is oniy a typographical mistake' He submits that the respondents without considering all these facts have passed 2 impugned orders stating that under the TS-LrPASS Act' the petitioner's representation dated o4'o3'2022 for making corr aking corrections in online application cannot be considered as the entire process of getting building permission is made online and the office has no authority to rectify any of the said mistakes' the house He submits that the inadvertently mentlonlng number when Petltloner has submitted all the relevant W.P.No.18469 01 2022 :.i I documents cannot fall under Section 177 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2OIg.

He submits that there is no misrepresentation and it is only an inadvertent error crept while submitting the said application and the respondents ought not to have cancelled the building permission.

3.

Mr.

N. praveen Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.2 submits that now under the TS-bpASS Act, the applications are made onrine and for the correction, they do not have any control or jurisdiction to rectify the said mistakes.

Hence, the impugned proceedings dated lZ .O3.2022 does not suffer from any illegalitr,.

He submits that already the petitioner has completed the ground floor and the said construction is in deviatio application. rrr uevlatron of the sanctioned 4.

The process for obtaining permission is online, the petitioner has obtained the building permission online.

Along with the application, the peUtioner has docurnenrs.

IVhiIe maki-_ :" ^'-*'.: r"" submitted alr the "r::#*:::i"ff::::: ".0 24 06 2ozl :ioner hqs *."rr.r.: ""': of mentionrng rs 7-3_132.

Even it \N .P .No.L8469 of 2022 is not the case of the respondents that for gaining some advantage or for any other purposes, the petitioner has mentioned the other house number.

Hence the mentioning of house number by the petitioner in the application is only an inadvertent error.

Even if the application has been submitted online, there should be some mechanism in place to rectify this kind of mistakes.

5.

In view of the above, the impugned proceedings dated 17.O3. ted 17.O3.2O22 is set aside and both the l"t respondent and the 2nd respondent shall look into this issue and take appropriate steps for redressing these kind of issues and mechanism should be in place to address these issues.

The l"t respondent shall file a detailed report in this regard before this Court within a period of four weeks from todaY.

6 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of' Report shall placed before the Registrar (Judiciai) and as far as the be contention of the learned Standing counsel wittr regard to the building deviations that are done by the petitioner' it is always open for them to initiate appropriate action in accordance with I law. lt is left open to the respondents to take aPProPriate 4 W.P.No.1B469 of2022 action in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

Copy shall be marked to the 1st respondent.

5 ,TRUE COPYII SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR- @ To, SEC1ION OFFTCER '1 .

The principal Secre " l!laloana su"rurunlS{:i%Tlcipal Ad min istration Depa rtment, state of . "i ffig;jifi,,"fifjiffi ,{iJ},.* H gh c. ur TR w \ i HIGH COURT DATED: 18t0412022 -;^,-a ir. _) L t?il ?ffi ORDER WP.No.18469 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION tr WIIHOUT COSIS I