The 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 direct the respondent to stop all illegal and unauthorised constructions being made over subject land to an extent of Acre.6.16 gts situated in sy.No.139, Saidabad Village and Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SUDHAKAR REODy Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI R.VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - W.P.NO: 510 OF 2025 Between: 2 1 Mr. Mohammed Saber Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed yaseen Ali, Aged aboul 17 years, Fi/o House No. 77 years, Occ. Business, 1B-1:S10/56/A/10, PhoolBagh, ChandrayanaGutta, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad - SOOOOS teiangana State Mr. Mohammed Taher Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed yaseen Ali, Aged about 63 Years, Occupation. Business, Resident of House No. j 7-i -574 io 3SS, Subramanyam- ltlaSqI Colony, Saraswathi Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059, Telangani State. l/,l.tq< Begum Alias Mumtaz Jehan, W/o. Late Mohammed eamar, D/o. Late Mr. Mohammed Yaseen Ali, Aged about 63 years, Occupation. Housewife, Resident of House No.S-4-212136, Rani Ganj, nmOedkar irligir, Secunderabad-500003, Telangana State. 3 4 Petitioner No.1,2 and 3 Rep by its GpA Holder Mr. Pilli .Vishal Raj Ya{av, S/o. Late pilli Kumar yadav, aged about 25 vears occupation. Business Rl/o. H.No. iS-4-46911, Osman Shaii, eehinObfd Bui Depot, Gowliguda, Nampally, Hyderabad-i2, T.S. AND ...PETtTIONERS

1. State of Telangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary,.Municjpal Administration and Urban DeVebpmerit Department, secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Greater Hydeiabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, 3. The Zonal Commissioner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy Cbmmissioner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 5. M/s. lstha Builders lndia Pvt. Ltd., R/o. H.No.16-1-28l47lA'l3, Saraswati Circle No.7, CHRZ,GHMC, Hyderabad. Nagar, Dhobhi Ghat, Saidabad, Hyderabad- 500059. (R5 is impleaded as per Court Order dt: 09.01.2025 in lA.No.2/2025) ...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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in nature of mandamus Declaring the action o Respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking action, pursuant to show cause notice dated 26.03.2024,08.04.2024 and speaking orders daled 20.04.2024 in pursuance of complaint made by the Petitioner against illegal and unauthorised construction being made on the part of the land, total admeasuring Acres.06.16 gts situated in survey no.139, Saidabad village' Saidabad mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana. as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of GHMC act, 1955 principle of Natural Justice and fundamental rights under Articles '14,19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to take immediate action pursuant to Notices dated 26.03.2024, O8.O4.2024 and speaking orders dated 20.04.2024, against illegal and unauthorised construction on the subject land to an extent of Acres.06.16 gts situated in survey no.139, Saidabad village, Saidabad mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stop all illegal and unauthorised constructions being made over subject land to an extent of Acre 06..16 gts situated in sy No.139, Saidabad village and Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI R.VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.534 and 51O of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner in W.P.No.S34 of 2025 and the petitioners in W.P.No.510 of 2025 are claiming to be in possession of land admeasuring Acs. 10.06 gts., and Acs.06.16 gts., in Sy.No. 139 respectively situated at Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District. They are the owners of house bearing municipal No.17-1-393 and 17 - l-394 and 17- 1 -395 respectively

2. Petitioner in W.P.No.534 of 2025 filed a stit uide O.S.No.404 of 2016 against one B. Satyanarayana for perpetual injunction. On the request made by the petitioner/plaintiff, the trial Court appointed Commissioner to note down the physical leatures of the suit schedule property A and B and accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a detailed report.

3. It is the specilic contention of the petitioners in both the writ petitions that they lodged complaints with municipal authorities stating that respondent No.5 1S proceeding with construction in their respective properties I i without obtaining permission lrom GHMC. On receipt of the said complaint, respondent No.4 has issue<l sltou, cause notice, dated 08.04.2024 to respondent No.S, who, in turn, .) submittecl reply, dated 18.O4.2024. On consideration of the same, uide speaking orders, dated 20.04.2024, respondent No.4 directed respondent No.5 to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days, but the same was not removed. Thereafter, respondent No.4 is not taking any steps for implementation of the speaking orders, dated 2O.O4.2O24. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.4. the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

4. Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on instructions would submit that the petitioners filed the present writ petitions by suppressing the facts. Smt Saida Begum, the petitioner in W.P.No.534 of 2025, fi\e:d a suit ulde O.S.No.9l2 of 202'2 for perpetual injunction along with an application seeking interim injunction. The said application seeking interim injunction was dismissed. This Court granted injunction in favour of original owners. Therefore an opportunity may be given to respondent No.5 to produce copies of all the aforesaid I orders and place the facts before respondent No.4 and a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the same.

5. Sri R.Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, would submit that there is no construction in the subject property. He has filed the photographs to the said effect.

6. Petitioners disputed the said fact and filed photographs. Perusa-l ol the photographs filed by the petitioners would reveal that there is one shed and construction is also going on. Even the photographs filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent- corporation also would reveal that there is one shed.

7. Thus, there are disputed facts, which this Court \ cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of directing respondent No.4 to inspect the subject property and if any violation, including unauthorized construction, by respondent No.5 is found, he shal1 take action against respondent No.5 strictly in accordance with the procedurc laid dou,n under the Greater Hyderaba.d Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 by putting the power of attorney of the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice a,nrl affording them an opportunity of hearing. Both the petitioners ancl respondent No.5 are at liberty to submit all the relevant documents before respondent No.4 and a-rso raise aI the contentions and grounds which they have raised in the present writ petitions and respondent No.4 shall considet. the same. However, respondent No.4 shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if anr,, pending in the Writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs. To //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR I \\ sEgTtoN oFFtcER ) / ,| 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. o Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Q.epartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner, Greate'r Hyderabad Municipal C"orporation, Hyderabad. The.Zonal Commissioner, TheGreater Hyderabad Muhicipal iorfioration, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The.Deputy Qgpqisgloner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle_No.7, CHRZ, GHMC, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI T.SUDHAK{B BqDDy, Advocate tOpUCl Qne CC to SRI B.MAHENDER REDDY, ndvocateiOeUCl Twc CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High bourt for the State of Telangan_a. at Hyderabad. [OUT] ONC CC tO SRI R,VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC TOPUC] Two CD Copies PSK. BS + ilFr-5fu HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.534 AND 510 of 2025 IAsEd1 (( .l r) 2 4 JAfit 2025 t -Dr:c. * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS crof" %€