One CC to SRI v. NARSIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038 The Commissioner, Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur, Sanga Reddy District The Town Planning officer, 0/o The Commissioner, Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Village,Sangareddy District

5. Anugu Rajashekar Reddy, S/o A Sitharam Reddy, Aged 28 years, Occ Business,Rl/o H No 1575/1, Vandanapuri Colony,Beeramguda, Ameenpur Village,Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS building 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one like a writ of Mandamus{eclaring the inaction of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in disposing my revised videFile no.003370/8P/HMDtu0696/SKP/2024 dr.3O.3.2024 in respect of building constructed in 400 Square yards or 334.4 Square meters of land covered plot nos.142 (165 Sq yards), 143 ('165 Sq.Yards) and plot no 144lSouthern side part (70 Sq Yards) situated in Survey nos.858 (P), 914 to 939 and 941 (P) located at SWAROVSKY of Uskebai Village, H/o Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles, of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The Telangana State Building permission application Permission Approval And Self Certification System (Ts-Bpass) Act, 2020 and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3to consider and dispose Petitioner revised building permission application vide File no.003370/BP/HMDA/0696 |SKP12024 dt.3o.3.2024 as expeditiously as possible IA 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 That the respondent no.3 may be directed not to take to any coercive steps based on the Lr.No.G1/ 1213fiP SiAMPR/2024 dated 3.1 .2025 in respect of building constructed in 400 Square yards or 334.4 Square meters of land covered plot nos.'|42 (165 Sq yards), 143 (165 Sq.Yards) and plot no 144lSouthern side part (70 Sq Yards) situated in Survey nos.858 (P), 914 to 939 and 941 (P) located at SWAROVSKY of Uskebai Village, H/o Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy Districtpending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARSIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI VIJAY B. PAROPAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER I 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.1174 ot 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri Putta Iftishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 ald Sri Vrjay B. Paropakar, learned counsel appearing for respo4dent No.5. Perused the record

2. Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of 400 Sq.yds of land covered by plot Nos. i42(165 Sq.yds), 143 (165 Sq.yds) and ptot No.11/southern side part (7O Sq.yds), in Sy.Nos.858 (p), 914 to 939 and 941 (Pl, situated at Swarovslgr of Uskebai Village, hamlet of Ameenpur Municipality, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document KI,..I \\'.1).No. I 174 of'2015 2 No.5597 of 2023 dated 16.02.2023. He has made an application, dated 30.09.2023 with respondent No.2 for construction ol building and the sarne was granted. On

13.72.2023 he has mortgaged lOo/o of the subject property lrf lavour of respondent No.2. He has raised stilt+S upper floors in the subject property.

3. Respondent No.5, neighbor of the petitioner, lodged a complaint with respondent No.3-Municipality alleging that the petitioner is proceeding with the unauthorized construction. The same was not considered. Therefore, he has submitted a representation, dated 27.11.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against the petitioner and also reject the building permit order. The same was not considered. Therefore, he has liled a writ petition vide W.P.No.34882 of 2024. The said writ petition czune up for hearing on 11.12.2024, on which date, Iearned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, on instructions, submitted to this Court that respondent No.3 will pursue the Additional Collector (Local Bodies), l / - KL,J W.P.No.l174 of 2025 Sangareddy District pursuant to the proceedings, dated

31.07.2024 and take action against petitioner herein by putting the petitioner herein and respondent No.S on notice and affording them arr opportunity of hearing. Recording the said submission, the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner herein pursuant to cancellation proceedings, dated 03.06.2024 and letter, dated

31.07.2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 by putting the petitioner and respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. This Court also directed respondent No.3 to complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

4. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.3 has issued notice, dated 03.O1.2025, fixing the hearing on 06.01.2O25 at 3.15 P.M. According to the petitioner, he has appeared before respondent No.3 on 06.01.2025 Kt.. W.P.No.ll74 o12025 .+ and responclent No.3 is not affording him an opportunity ol hearing, to submit explanation or written representation or submission. He has not cven considered the application, dated 30.O9.2023 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2-HMDA. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.3, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Both, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to seek consideration of earlier application, dated 30.O9.2023 submitted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and cannot seek a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the same. He has to submit fresh application.

6. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.3 will conduct enquiry strictly in accordance u'ith the direction issued by this ) KL.J W.P.No.1174 of 2025 j Court, vide order, dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.No.34882 of

7. Respondent No.2 having received the application, dated 30.O9.2023 along with an amolrnt of Rs. 10,000/- towards fee, should have been informed the said lact to the petitioner instead of keeping the said application pending. However, respondent No.3 shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein in terms of the order, dated 1 1.I2.2O22 in W.P.No.34882 of 2024.

8. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the application, dated 30.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner vide receipt No.TS/839512024 and Challan No.TS/8395/2024. If respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall inform the said fact to the petitioner herein within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall conduct enquiry by putting the petitioner and respondent No.S on notice and ( ( Kt.. W.P.No.l 174 crl'2025 6 I I affording them an opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court- vide order, dated 11.12.2024 in W.p.No.34gg2 of 2024 ',vithin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition sha_ll stand closed. SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANTfi,EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sFcTroN oFFrcER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department. Secretariit Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038

3. The Commissioner, Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur, Sanga Reddy District 4. The Town Planning officer, 0/o The Commissioner, Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Village,Sangareddy District

5. One CC to SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI V. NARSIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC [OPUCI 8. One CC to SRI VIJAY B. PAROPAKAR Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

10.Two CD Copies KKS BS Fr I \ I .r4 17 HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.1174 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p .r?F[ Y9r^^ -trN*