Telangana High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed to direct Respondents 1 to 7 to refrain from demolition of and interference with the property i.e., N. Convention of a total extent of 27063 sq. mtrs. of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal (‘the subject premises’). A Single Judge Bench of T. Vinod Kumar, J., opined that respondent-authorities should not have initiated proceedings during subsistence of status quo orders passed by Respondent 3-State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, MA & UD Department regarding the illegal and unauthorized construction made in the appeal filed by petitioner. Thus, the Court stated that there shall be an order of status quo existing as on the date of the present order.
Background
Counsel for petitioner contended that respondent-authorities, issued a show-cause notice dated 30-07-2024 and speaking order dated 08-08-2024, without even serving either of the said orders on petitioner and had undertaken demolition of petitioner’s premises on the morning of 24-08-2024. It was further contended that only after the demolition work of petitioner’s premises was commenced, speaking order dated 08-08-2024 was served, but by that time, Respondent 7-Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), with the officials of Respondent 4-Municipal Corporation, Greater Hyderabad had already commenced the demolition.
Further, even before serving the speaking order and even before expiry of 15 days’ time granted therein for petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized illegal construction made by encroaching on to the Full Tank Level (‘F.T.L.’) of Tammidikunta Tank, respondent-authorities had undertaken demolition. Earlier, respondent-authorities rejected the application filed by petitioner seeking regularization of the construction, thus, petitioner filed an appeal in terms of Rule 18 of the Telangana Regularization of Unauthorized Constructed Buildings and Buildings constructed in deviation of Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2015, wherein, Respondent 3, authority had passed an order of status quo until further orders and that the said order was subsisting.
Respondents submitted that the authorities, pursuant to communication received from the Executive Engineer North Tanks Division, dated 25-07-2024 had issued a show cause notice dated 30-07-2024, and thereafter, passed a speaking order holding that the construction made by petitioner to be unauthorized construction in FTL/Buffer zone of Tammidikunta. It was contended that insofar as construction made by encroaching on to FTL/Buffer zone was concerned, no notice was required in terms of Section 405(a) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that since petitioner disputed the fact that respondent-authorities had served the show-cause notice, thus, respondent-authorities were required to demonstrate the manner and mode of service of the show-cause notice on petitioner before passing the speaking order.
The Court noted that while respondents were claiming the spread including FTL of Tammidikunta Tank to be Acs.29.24 guntas, but the report as submitted by the Joint Collector before the Special Court showed that respondents took a different stand, whereby, it was stated that FTL of Tammidikunta Tank was only Acs.20.07 guntas. Thus, the Court stated that the stand of respondent-authorities in the impugned proceedings was contrary to the stand taken before the Special Court and respondent-authorities without having determined the extent of the tank by conducting a survey were claiming that the said tank was spread over Acs.29-24 guntas in respect of which, a civil suit was pending for adjudication.
The Court opined that respondent-authorities ought not to have initiated proceedings during the subsistence of status quo orders passed by Respondent 3 regarding the illegal and unauthorized construction made in the appeal filed by petitioner. Thus, the Court stated that there shall be an order of status quo existing as on the date of the present order.
The matter would next be listed on 09-09-2024.
[N. Convention v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1822, decided on 24-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: P Sri Raghuram, Counsel
For the Respondents: Additional Advocate General; GP; M.A.K Mukheed, K. Ravinder Reddy, Counsels
