High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1to consider the representation dated 02.06.2024 and 10.7 .2024 to cancel the Occupancy Certificate issued vide proceeding No 1579/GHMC/SEC12O2}-OC dated 23.05.2022 without completing the construction and without knowledge of the co-owners Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI M. ARUN KUMAR SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Respondent No.S: -- The Court made the following: ORDER : i t i I I HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.393 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Sri M. Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners, Sri G. Nagaraj and Smt. K. Veena claiming to be partners of respondent No.5 purchased a house bearing No.l2-5-tO2/L, L2-S-IO2/2 and 12-5- lo2l3 consisting of Ground, First and Second Floor, on Plot No.1, Sy.No. 179, adrneasuring 417 sq.yds., situated at Vrjayapuri, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad, under a registered Agreement of sa-le-cum-General Power of Attorney with Possession bearing document No.859 of 2018, dated 22.Ol.2OLa. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has I t ! I I i I ; I I 2 obtained Brrilding permit order dated ll.O2.2O2O for construction of 1 Stilt + 4 Upper floors.

3. Perusal. of record would reveal that there are disputes bel.ween petitioners and other two pa-rtners of respondent No.5 firm. Petitioner No.2 has filed a suit vide O.S.No.48 of 2023 against petitioner No.1, respondent No.5 ar-rd others seeking partition and separate possession of the subject property. Respondcnt No.5 on the basis of Development Agreement and Occupancy certihcate obtained tly it in respect of the subject property, r:ntered into Agreement of sales with third parlies. One of the purchaser filed a suit vide O.S.No.114 of 2022 against respondent No.S and others seeking specilic perfrrrmance of Agreement of Sale.

4. It is 1-he specific case of the petitionc.rs that respondent l\o.5 wittrout completing all the constr-uction works in terms of Building permit order dated LL.O2.2O2O has obtained Occupancy Certihcate from \ , respondent No.4. Therefore, petitioners have submitted a representations dated 02.06.2024 and LO.OZ.2O24 to respondent No.2 and Vigilance Officer (Commissioner, EV & DM), GHMC respectively, w.ith a request to take action against respondent No.5. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representations, respondent No.2 and Vigilance Officer (Commissioner, EV & DM), GHMC, Hyderabad did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

5. As discussed supra, there are serious disputes between the petitioners and other partners of respondent No.5. The aforesaid two suits are pending.

6. Perusal of the aforesaid representations would reveal that the petitioners simply stated that respondent No.S did not erect lift and did not complete other works. They have not stated the details of the others which respondent No.5 has not completed pursuant to R],i[ding I I i I I I I I 4 permit ordcr dated ll.O2.2O2O. Therefore, without specificaliy rnentioning the other works to be completed by respondent No.5 in the said representations, petitioners c:annot seek a direction to respondent No.2 and Vigilance Officer (Commissioner, EV & DM), GHMC, Hyderabad to consider the said rcpresentations. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less, the relief sought in the present il,rit petition.

7. In the light of the same, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberrty is granted to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation specifically narrating the works which respondent No.5 has not completed pursuant to Building perrnit order dated LL.O2.2O2O 1,o the Deputy Commissioner concerned. On receipt of such representatior-r, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall conduct site inspection and if the albgations made by the petitioners are found to be true, take action ) ) 5 against respondent No.5 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955, by putting the petitioners, other pa_rtners of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an opportunit5r. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, '1. One CC to SRl. GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

2.TwoCCstoGreaterHyderabadMunic.lPalCorporation,HighCourtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT|

3.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies 4 KKS PSK IP HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.393 of 2025 2--a-= -t lE s'' ir€ q- d 1B :EB zB25 ? ? C, ,7 * D!--, :-\r t .,rc DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \Q