Smt. Sangishetty Rama Devi vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish her locus standi to file the writ petition. The lease deed produced by the petitioner was not in her name but in the name of M/s. Kanaka Durga Industries, represented by Sangishetty Alekya, and not the petitioner. Furthermore, the GST registration certificate, also relied upon by the petitioner, was in the name of M/s. Satya Durga Industries, and the petitioner's status was shown as 'Proprietorship,' not as a representative of the firm that entered into the lease. The Court also noted that the petitioner's claimed premises were reportedly demolished two years prior. Regarding the road width dispute, the Court found that the 6th respondent had gifted 20 feet of the road-affected area, a fact corroborated by the 5th respondent's counter-affidavit. The Court concluded that the petitioner was attempting to use the writ jurisdiction to settle civil disputes pending before the competent civil court, deeming the writ petition devoid of merit and an abuse of process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Sangishetty Rama Devi, claims to be a leaseholder of four mulgies at premises No. 6-2-1471, Ramagiri Road, Nalgonda, and has been operating a business there for seven years. She contends that the 6th respondent, Vanama Sambha Shiva Rao, obtained building permission for construction on adjacent premises (No. 6-2-1471 and 6-2-1472) by suppressing and misrepresenting facts, particularly regarding the width of the abutting road. The petitioner filed a representation with the Municipal Commissioner (5th respondent) seeking action, but no action was taken, leading to the present writ petition. The 5th respondent, Municipal Commissioner, argued that the building permission was granted after verifying the 6th respondent's prima facie title and following due procedure. They also stated that the petitioner's claimed shops were demolished two years prior and she is not in possession, thus lacking locus standi. The Municipal Commissioner further asserted that the 6th respondent had gifted 20 feet of the road-affected area, resolving any boundary disputes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the building permission granted by the 5th respondent (Municipal Commissioner) to the 6th respondent (Vanama Sambha Shiva Rao) for construction on premises No. 6-2-1471 and 6-2-1472 is arbitrary, illegal, and unjust due to alleged suppression and misrepresentation of facts regarding the width of the abutting road, thereby violating the petitioner's rights as a leaseholder? Petitioner's arguments: The 6th respondent obtained building permission by showing incorrect boundaries, including a lesser road width than actually exists, and intends to encroach on road area. The petitioner, as a leaseholder, is aggrieved by this illegal construction. She relied on her lease deed and GST registration certificate to establish her tenancy. Respondents' arguments (primarily 5th respondent): The building permission was granted after verifying the 6th respondent's title and following due procedure. The petitioner lacks locus standi as her claimed premises were demolished, and she is not in possession. Any dispute regarding road width was resolved by the 6th respondent gifting the affected road area. The writ petition is an attempt to settle civil disputes pending before a civil court.