Ache Amamath v. fF S!a!e of Telangana

3. Sri Budde Suryaprakash, Sio.Sayanna, Age. Major, Occ. Rl/o.H.No.SO-2-113, Arepally, Warangal Mandal and District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notices in Proc.No.Gl/2083/DlV.3/cir-1/2024 dated 111112024 and final notice 20112t2o24 of the respondent No.2 being contrary to the permission accorded to the petitioner for the construction of house vide Proc.No.381936/GWMC t1449t2O24 dated 291312024 on the instigation of respondent No.3 and resorting to effect demolition is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to resort any coercive steps for demolition of petitioners house bearing No.50-3-59 Arepally Village, paidipalle, Warangal in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 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 suspend the notices in Proc.No.G1l2083lDlV.3lcir-112024 dated 111112024 and final notice 2011212024 of the respondent No.2 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Couniel for the Petitioner: SRI MACHERLA KISHAN KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respohdent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI PASHAM MOHITH, SC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.653 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Smt. Macharla Padmalatha, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.50-3-59 consisting of 396.31 Sq.yards situated at Arepally, Warangal Mandal and District. He is claiming right over the said property, basing on the registered Partition Deed bearing No.2l l4l of 2023 dated21.09.2023.

3. Respondent No.3 has lodged a complaint, dated28J0.2024 with respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner is making construction in lnam land and erected the gate encroaching road portion. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice, dated 01.11.2024 to the petitioner herein granting seven (7) days .time to submit his explanation and accordingly, petitioner has submitted explanation on 11.11.2024. On consideration of the same, respondent No.2 vide impugned final notice, dated 20.12.2024 directed the petitioner to remove the said deviated portion and road encroachment construction of 2 RCC building within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said intimation. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The allegations made by respondent No.3 in the impugned final notice, d,ated. 20.12.2024 are two (i) the petitioner made construction in Inam land and (ii) petitioner made construction by encroaching into road

5. With regard to the first limb of the allegation, respondent No.2 cannot consider the same. There is no basis tor the said allegation. Except the complaint of respondent No.3, there is no reference in the impugned notice to substantiate the said allegation. Basing on the complaint of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 cannot issue show cause notice and impugned final notice dated 20.12.2024. Respondent No.2 has to condutct enquiry, obtain information from revenue officials if necessary. Respondent No.2 did not conduct any enquiry.With regard to second limb of the allegation, it is the contention of respondent No.2 that petitioner made construction by obtaining permission,

52.26 Sq.Mtrs was left lor road affected area as per the sanctioned permission and the petitioner constructed building by 3 encroaching 25.54 Sq.Mtrs road affected area which is unauthorized and liable for necessary action. Respondent No.2 has also specifically mentioned the said deviations in a tabular form in his written instructions, dated 08.01.2025.The same are placed on record.

6. Petitioner disputes the said fact. Therefore, this Court cannot consider the factual aspect in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

7. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 issued final notice, dated 20.12.2024 in violation of principles of natural justice and without following procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner ( ( cannot file writ petition and has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252 (2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 before the appellate authority i.e., Regional Director concemed.

8. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the final notice, dated 20.12.2024 before appellate authority/Regional Director concerned, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On filing I I 4 of such appeal, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same, within a period of (30) days thereafter, strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner and respondent No.3 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Till then, respondent No.2 shall not proceed further, pursuant to hnal notice, dated

20.12.2024. If petitioner failed to prefer an appeal within the aforesaid period of one week, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD'- L..LAKSHMI BABU .TANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Kashibugga Circle-1 , Warangal.

3. One CC to Sri Macherla Kishan Kumar Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri Pasham Mohith, SC[OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies To, TJ BSR HIGH GOURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER WP.No.653 of 2025 i.E STA )4- d\,( 7 C .I a- ) * aE5p7i gri * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS