High Court · 2025

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 action of the Respondents herein, more particularly, Respondent No.3 and 4 herein in demolishing the subiect property of the Petitioner at G-2, G-3, G-16, G-17, G-18 and G-19 of Anuhar Homes Morning Raga Apartments situated at Plot No. 2lP,3,4,5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14and't5/P,inSy.No.86situatedatNeknampurVillage'Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing a notice and without following due process of law as null and void as the same is unlawful, unjust, illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of Natural Justice, against the provisions of Telangana MunicipalitiesAct20'lgandagainsttheprinciplesofpublicpolicyand consequently direct the Respondents herein, more particularly, Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein to not to interfere with the subject property of the Petitioners at G-2, G-3,G-16,G-17,G-18andG-lgofAnuharHomesMorningRagaApartments situated at Plot No. 2tP,3,4,5, 6, 7, B, 9, 10' 11.12, 13,14 and 151P, in Sy' No' 86 situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of justice, and equitY. I lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC pr'aying that in the circumst?nces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein, more particularly, Respondent No. 3 herein to consider the representation dated 17 .12.2024 of Petitioner herein in accordance with law, pending dlsposal of the main Writ Petition. IA NO: 2 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 direct Respondents herein, more particularly,. Respondent No.3 and 4 herein to not to further damage/demolish the subject property of the petitioner at G-2, G-3, G-16, G-17, G-18 and G-19 of Anuhar Homes Morning Raga Apartments situated at Plot No.2/P,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14and151P,inSyNo86situatedat Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y.RAMA RAO AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD' S'C. FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KATIKA RAVTNDER REDDY, S.C. FOR HYDRAA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER / *,, ''. ,r' HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETTTI ON No.980 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel fbr the petitioner, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing fbr respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader fbr Ilome appearing fpr respondent No.5.

2. This rvrir irctition is filctl ro declare the action of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in dcruoiishing the pr.operly of the petitioner i.e. G-2, C-3. G-16, G-17. G-18 and G_t9 of Anuhar l{omes Moming Raga Apartrncnrs at plot No.2/p. 3 to l4 and 15/p in Sy. No. 86 situated at Neknampur. Viilage, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ( for short, 'the subject property,), without issuing a notice and withour tblloliing due process of law as illegal and fbr consequential dir-ecLion to thc respondents not to interfere with the subject properry. 2

3. Vide impugned speaking order dated 04'12'2024' 3'd respondent directed Sri N.Rami Reddy, owner of the subject plots to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days'

4. The petitioner herein is claiming that it is Builder of the subject property and Sri N'Rami Reddy is the owner' Petitioner is disputing the altegation rnade by respondent No'3 that it is constructing commercial shutter in existing building' The impugned speaking order was passed on the complaint of Pasumuri Bhasker, resident of Anuhar Homes Moming Raga 'Apartments' The petitioner did not rnake said N Rami Reddy' owner of the land and the said Pasurnuri Bhasker' as parties to the present writ l-Iorvever. thc petitioncr seeks tiberty of this Court to petttlon prefer an appeal to challenge thc speaking order dated 04J22024' 5. As discussed supra, there are certain factual aspects in the matter which this Clourt caunot consider in a writ petition filed under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India' The impugned speaking order is an appealablc order' The petitioner has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 25](l) of the Act' 2019' ,:d To .:

6. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner and said N. Rami Reddy, owner of the subject plots. to prefer an appeal challenging the speaking order dated,04.12.2024 within one (1) wcck ltom the date of receipt of a copy of this order with the Regional Director concemed. On filing of the said appeal, the said Regional Director to dispose it of within thirty (30) days thereafter. Ifthe petitioner fails to file an appeal within the aforesaid period of one week, liberty IS granted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take action against thc petitioner. Till then. respondent No.3 is directed not to take any lurlher steps pursuant to the speaking order datcd 04. 12.2024. I'here shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if an1,, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR ASS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Telangana.

1. The Principal_secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Deverooment u-epartment, Secretariat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangaria, Stite of Telangana.

2. The Mekop.olilan Commissioner, Hy_d_erabad Metropolitan Development ' Authority (HMDA), Swarna Jayanthl Complex, Ameerpet, ffyOeraSaO, Telanoana. 3 The M'unicipal commissioner, lri{anikonda Municiparity, Ranga Reddy District, 4. The Commipsio.lgi,_flV.dp.rabad Disaster Response and Assets lvlonitoring llq flglggtiol,(HYDRAA), C/o. Municipat Adminisrrarion oepirtmeni, - - secretanat buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 5 1 5s li_r t_b-lnspector, Narsingipolice Stgt]onl Ranga deddy District. Telanqana. 6. one CC to SRt y.RAMA RAo Rt'to ASSoC|ATES, Advotates ropu-CI '- - 7 . rwo ccs to Gp for Municipar Administration anJ uroan beu6i-obir""nI'riiqt.,, - Courtforthe Stateof Tetah.gana at UyOerafaO lOUfl 8. Two CCs to Gp for HOME. High'Courr foi ihe 'Srat3 of Telangana, at ---r""'"5' Hvderabad. IOUTI I ,'. .{,

9. Oire CC to SRI V.NARSIil,{HA GOUD, S C. for HMDA [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI LAXIv'IA|AH KANCHANI, S.C. for Ir,4unicipalities [OPUC] 11. One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, S.C for HYDRAA IOPUCI 12.fwo CD CoPies PSK. GJP 4 HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.980 of 2025 ( q o 1t\E StAi ":)\' 0 6 l$i,, 2[25 ( a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS // I ,,+ /t / t //