HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16785 of 2006 DATE: 04.06.2014 Between:
Smt. A.Shakuntala Devi ... Petitioner And The Commissioner of L.B.Nagar Municipality, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District & another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16785 of 2006 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. None appears for the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner states that she is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.72 in Sy.Nos.198 to 203 admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated at Kothapeta village, Uppal Kalan, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy district, having got the same under registered gift deed dated 08.04.1991 from her husband, who purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24.01.1969. When there was illegal interference in respect of her plot by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed OS No.1237 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permanent injunction and the same was decreed ultimately in her favour. She submitted an application to the 1st respondent on 15.05.2006 seeking permission for the construction of the building in Plot No.72 by paying necessary charges, but the said application was rejected by the 1st respondent on 21.06.2006 on the ground that they have already accorded permission to the 2nd respondent on 26.01.2006 duly verifying the registered documents ‘over the same site’.
3. A perusal of the permission accorded to the 2nd respondent shows that the permission was given in respect of Plot No.89, but not Plot No.72, which is owned and possessed by the petitioner. So far as Plot No.72 is concerned, there is no permission issued to any one as on date. Challenging the proceedings dated 21.06.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition was filed.
4. Though eight years have elapsed, no counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent nor record is made available. But a perusal of the proceedings issued in favour of the 2nd respondent clearly show that the permission was accorded to the 2nd respondent in respect of Plot No.89, whereas the petitioner is seeking permission for Plot No.72. In the circumstances, obviously, the 1st respondent has not applied their mind. The 1st respondent cannot decide the title of the properties. But when an application for identifiable plot is made, it is the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to consider the same in accordance with law.
5. In the circumstances, the intimation in RC No.G3/29/06 dated 21.06.2006 is set aside, but in view of the change in the Rules relating to the building permission, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh application in accordance with the present Rules in respect of plot owned by her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months thereafter.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 04.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9 WRIT PETITION No.16785 of 2006 Date: 04.06.2014 BSS