w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


GKR Infra Projects India Private Limited v/s State of Telangana & Another

    W.P. No. 29681 of 2022
    Decided On, 19 July 2022
    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
    For the Petitioner: Vijay Kumar Panuganti, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.P. for MCPL, Admn. Urban Development (TG).


Judgment Text
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice dated 07-05-2022 bearing Roc.No.G1/TPO/169/2022 cancelling the LRS No.1928/2016-17-Roc.No.G/LRS/4651/2016-17 dated 27-09-2017 despite giving clarification dated 25-01-2021 to the intimation letter dated 09-12-2020 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Vijay Kumar submits that the petitioner company has purchased an open site to an extent of 722.22 sq. yards equivalent to 603.86 sq. metres in Sy.No.746/E situated at Paloncha, by way of a sale deed dated 30-08-2010. He submits that the petitioner has submitted an application before respondent No.2 seeking regularization of the said site by enclosing a copy of the registered sale deed and other required documents and after careful scrutiny and verification of the documents and after collecting the requisite amount of Rs.4,69,001/-, respondent No.2 issued orders approving the regularization of the subject site on 27-09-2017. He submits that though the petitioner has applied in the name of the company, LRS was done in the name of the Director of company and the petitioner is under the bonafide impression that as it has filed all the documents, they have processed that. He submits that then the petitioner has received a letter dated 09-12-2020 seeking clarification of the same and the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 25-01-2021 clarifying that she has submitted LRS application on the name of the firm in the capacity of the Director and to that effect, the sale deed submitted along with the LRS application clearly reveals the fact that the petitioner is the Director of the petitioner firm and other legal proceedings which are pending are subsequent to the issuance of the LRS orders. He submits that even after receiving the representation of the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 07-05-2022 was issued cancelling the LRS approval stating that there is misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not misrepresented the facts and in fact they are seeking regularization and at that point of time, they have also submitted the sale deed executed in the name of the company and the petitioner, who is the Director of the company, is authorized to submit the said documents and accordingly, she has submitted the application and it cannot be said that there is any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and cancellation of LRS approval on such ground is bad in law.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, has placed before this Court the LRS application wherein the columns mentioned as ‘individual plot’, ‘total layout’ and ‘part of layout’ and in the column of ‘individual plot’, it is stated ‘yes’ and the name of the applicant is mentioned as Gagganapalli Ramadevi instead of mentioning the name of the Director of company and as there is misrepresentation of facts, the respondent Municipality has cancelled LRS proceedings.

4. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention raised on behalf of the respondent Municipality that there is misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner as they are seeking regularisation of plot, which was purchased in the name of the company. It is not the case of the respondent Municipality that the said fact is not in the notice of the Municipality because along with the LRS application, the petitioner has also filed the sale deed. The Director is authorized to submit the application. But the name of the Director is mentioned and basing on that the respondent Municipality cannot say that there is misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Hence, th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e impugned notice dated 07-05-2022 is set aside giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the respondents and on receipt of such application, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
O R