Smt. Singiri Sahithi Kumari vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR I.A. No.3 AND 4 of 2023 IN AND WRIT PETITION No.3354 OF 2o23 COMMON ORDER This Writ Petition is hled for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents more particularly respondent No.2 in passing the order dated 28.01.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction made in the stilt floor of Sai Murali Residency within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which further necessary action would be initiated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, as being illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. 2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner through hybrid mode, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri Anirudh Thimmraju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the ,. -i: 2 parties, rhe Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stag( of admission.
Pe,itioner contends that she had purchased a flat bearing No.Sl in the building named as Sai Murali Residency in semi- finished stage under a registered sale deed from the developer who harl made construction of the aforesaid building by obtaininll permission dated, 29 .IO.2OO8 from the concerned municipeLl authorities consisting of cellar + stilt + ground + four upper floors; and that the subject property has been assessed to property tax by the respondent No.2 Municipality; and that the petitione:' is also paying necessary maintenance charges to the respondent No.3 which is an association formed by the residents of the aforesaid apartment building.
Petitioner further contends that based on a complaint made by the respondent No.3, the respondent authorities have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon her to explain as to why the flat constructed in the stilt floor, which is meant fol parking and purchased by her should not be declared as unauthorized construction and should not be directed to be removedT demolished; that the petitioner had submitted her explanatirn to the said notice ot 25.01.2O23; that the .""pon& lt No.2 authority has passed speaking order dated
3 28.01.2023 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in its correct perspective and holding that the flat constructed in the stilt floor to be an unauthorized construction; and that the stilt floor is to be used for parking purpose only and not for residential purpose. Petitioner further contends that by holding so, the respondent No.3 directed that the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction made in the stilt floor of Sai Murali Residency within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this notice.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the permission issued in favour of the developer of Sai Murali Residency, uide proceedings No. 128, B.A. No.G2l232/2OO8 dated 29.1O.2022 was only for construction of cellar + stilt + ground + four floors and the entire stilt floor area was to be used as parking and no constructions were permitted thereunder. 6. l,earned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 further submits that the petitioner had purchased the flat bearing No.Sl constructed in the stilt area from the developer in semi-finished stage under a registered sale deed and thereafter got the construction completed/ Iinished. \
4 a\ 7 . Le arned Standing Counsel further submits that on receivinll a complaint from the respondent No.3 which is an associat on of the residents of the aforesaid apartment building, as to n,)t having sufficient space for parking on account ol construc tion made in stilt floor, the authorities have initiated action arrd issued a show cause notice and on due consideration of the e:<planation submitted by the petitioner, had passed a speaking order on 2a.O1.2023. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that against the spealcing order passed by the respondent No.2 authority, the petitione - has an effective remedy of Appeal under Section 252 of the Tr lalgana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, the ActJ and instr:ad of availing the remedy provided under the Act, the petitioner has Iiled the present Writ Petition and obtained an order of sta.fil,s quo. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel submits r.hat the order of staa/s quo need to be vacated and the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy of Appeal.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 5 subrnits that on account of construction of flat made in the stilt floor, the occupants of the building are facing difficultie; in parking the vehicles and the construction so made >.
5 by the developer is contrary to the building permission gianted by the respondent No.2 authoritY.
I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. I 1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits of the matter, since the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 252 of th,e Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act') against the order impugned; that admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the said remedy; and that as it is not shown to this Court of the said remedy of appeal is inefhcacious, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 252 of tlle Act.
Further, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition on 14.03.2023 within the period of limitation provided for filing of appeal and since, this Court is now relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is to be granted three {O3) weeks time to file the appeal before the concerned authority.
Accordingly, petitioner is granted three (O3) weeks time to file the appeal from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court, and on petitioner filing such appeal within the said three (O3) I I
? 6 weeks, the appeal shall be taken on record without going into the as per:t of limitation.
Further, since this Court is now relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeat, the respondent authorities shall not gir e effect to the impugned order till the time granted by this Court expires. 15. liubject to above observations and granting liberty to the petitiorrer as aforesaid, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
It is needless to mention that this Court has not expresr;ed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Oonsequently, vacate petitions being I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2023 a:e also disposed of.
F s a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any sha[ stand closed \ //// P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA t ASSISTANT REGISTHAR I 1q \) SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principll peclejary, Municipal Adm.inistration Department, Telangana Secretari.tt, State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, T S 2. !_he. Corrmissione! Office at karimnagar, Karimnagar Municipality, Karimnag ar District,T.S
One CC tc SRI BETHT VENKAIESWAEIU, Advocate. tOpUCI
Two CCs to GP FOR MCP_L ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court'for the State of _ Telan-gan a at Hyderabad. [OUT]
One CC tr M/S.KANDUB.g p_B^qLl^KAR RAo, Advocate. topucl
One CC t,r ANIRUDH THTMMARAJU, Advocate. tOpUCI
Two CD Copies. BSK GJP i I
HlcH GOU,RT DATED:0310112024 COMMON C)RDER ..a, si4rt- t :/.( \$ 2 a;-1, o r.) ,L 2 0 FEB 20A SPATC {, * * l.A.No.3 AN'D 4 0F 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETTTI ON NO: 3354 0F 2023 ORDERING rHE t.As AND DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CTCSTS @oVt'r Gstr .-i;'
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.