High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Shanaz, w/o Mohd. Ghouse, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Household r/o H. No. 11-63, Kaji Street, Narsapur, Village and lvlandal, Medak District

3. Simran Sultana, d/o Mohd. Ghouse Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household r/o H. No. 11-63, Kaji Street, Narsapur, Vlllage and lv'landal, Medak District

4. Seema Sultana, d/o Mohd. Ghouse About 37 years, Occ. Household /o H. No. 1 1-63, Kaji Street, Narsapur, Village and Mandal, Medak District ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Adminlstiation Di:partment Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Greater Hyderabad lr4unicipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, near Tank bund Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporgtion. Circle No 21, bhindanagar, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Zone GHMC Hyderabad' Ranga Reddy District ,

4. Sri Srinivasa Murthy Thirumala Gudipudi, s/o Sri Sharma Janardhana eualouUi aoed aboirt 55 vears, rep by rts Development Agreement cum GPA Holdbr, M/ieNB lnfra LLP Rep by its IVlanaging Partner Sri Vhavishay Rao SiUnaOi i/o Pratapa. Rao aged ab6ut 27 yeais, Occ. Business, office at D No 1-54l1OtA Madhava Enclave, lr,4adinaguda, Hyderabad - 49

5. Sri Bhavishay Rao sibbadi, s/o Pratapa Rao Aged about 27.years,.Occ' -' Business, r/o Plot No 168 and 182, Ushodaya Enclar,e, Madinaguda Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or Difection more Particularly in the Nature of iVnNOnUUS Declaring the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in taking action against respondents 4 and 5 for their illegal constructions having received the complaint dal.ed 1211112024 over the petitioners plots of land total admeasuring 4000 Square yards forming part of Survey Number:; 276, 277, 278, 282,283,284,2t\1 , and 286 situated at Chanda Nagar Village. Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District as being lllegal, Arbitrary, Capricious, Malafide, not only Contrary to various provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act but also contrary to G.O. Ms. No 565 dated 4-1'1-2006 consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take immediate action against the 4th and Sth respondent for their illegal and unauthorized constructions lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in ';upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim directions dir"ecting the respondent No 3 to take action against respondent No 4 and 5 for their illegal and unauthorized constructions over the petitioners land admeasuring 400Cr :Square yards forming part of Survey Numbers 276, 277, 2lg, 282,283,284,285, and 286 situated at Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally lzlandal Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the complaint daied t2-11-i024 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. M MEHDI HUSSAIN Counsel for the Res;pondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN MIT PETITION No.675 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of 4,000 sq.yds., in Sy.Nos-276, 277, 278, 282, 283, 284, 285 and 286, situated at Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under unregistered Gift Settlement Deed dated 2a.O9.2006. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are making construction in the open plot Nos.264 to 282 situated in the said survey numbers without obtaining permission. Therefore, the \ ,\- 2 said construction is unauthorized construction. They have submitted a representation dated 12.11.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondertt No.3, petitioners f,rled the present writ pe tition.

3. Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned standing counsel appearing lor respondent Nos.2 and 3 on instructions would submit that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtainecl Building perrnit order dated LS.OL.2023 under TG-bPASS b-y way ol' self-certifrcation and self-declaration for construction of Stilt + S Upper floors. They have completecl the construction strictly in accordance with the saicl Building permit order. On consideration of the same, respondent No.3 has issued Occupancy Ccr-tificate -) dated 05.lO.2O24.In proof of the same, he has filed copy of the said Occupancy Certificate and also photographs.

4. Petitioners have submitted a representation dated

12.11.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 ald 5 in the aforesaid plots belongs to them. Thus, there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent no.4 and respondent No.5 with regard to title. Neither this Court nor respondent No.3 can consider the title dispute betu'een the parties. They have to approach the competent civil Court. If there is any deviation of construction to the said Building permit order granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and l:J petitioners have to specifically state the same and submit a representation to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. In case, respondent No.3 did not consider the same, they have to lile a fresh writ petition. Instead of doing so, petitioners fited the present writ petition alleging that 4 respondent Nos.4 and 5 are proceeding with the construction without obtaining permission. The same is factually incorrect. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less, the relief sought in the present \ /rit petition.

5. In the llight of the same, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.3. In the circumstancr:s of the case, there shall be no order as to coSts. As a se,quel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in tlre Writ petition shall stand. closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSIS SO,i. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR To, 0 1. One CC to Stil M MEHDT HUSSATN Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRt RAPARTHI VENKATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad de CITION OFFICER Municipal Corporation tOpUCl

3. Two ccs to Gp FoR A/cpL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High court for the State of Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies 4 KKS GJPv HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 ( ORDER -tHE ST4 o o I Nnn znzs ( ? WP.No.675 c'f 2025 Sp,^ -aH DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I