Smt. Puram Swarnalatha v. consequently direct the

immediately during pending and disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Pelitioner: SRl. S. VIJAYA PRASHANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ' Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. RAVINDER REDOY, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIONNo.1238 of2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Aclministration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 ancl Sri S. Ravincler Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No'2' Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac-O.5 gts in Gowrelli Village within respondent No.2-Municipality, on the strength of a registered gift deed bearing document No'93 of 2024, dated 06.02.2024. She has obtained building permission from the then Gram Panchayat on

22.O2.2024 for construction of ground+2 floors' She has constructed 3'd floor. Thus, 3"1 floor is unauthorized construction. Therefore, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice, dated 04.11.2024 calling explanation I W.P.No. I2--i 8 of 2 from her as to $/hy action shall not be taken against the petitioner for construction of 3.d floor unauthorizedly. Seven (7) rlays time was granted to submit explanation. She has no1 submitted any explanation. Therefore, respondent No.2 has issued final intimation letter, dated

12.11.2024 clirecting the petitioner to removc the said unauthorizt'd construction within fifteen (15) clays from the date of r eceipt of the said final intimation ir-.tter.

3. Insteacl o[ removing the said un a u thorizecl construction, petitioner has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.32O0 1 of 2024, challenging thc said final intimation letter', dated 12.11.2024. The said writ pet.ition came up for hearing on 18.1I.2024 on which date, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondcnt No.2 informed this Court that the petitioner made construction of 3*r floor unauthorizedly which is in deviatirtn to thc building perrnit order, dated 22.02.2024 ol' the then Gra.m Panchayath. When the staff of respondcnt No.2 i&; the spot, petitioner and her husband threatened ffi|-t ,l l KL,J W.P.No.l238 of 2025 them and tried to assault them. Recording the said submission, vide order dated 18.11.2024 this Court dismissed the said writ petition, and directed respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner herein pursuant to the final intimation letter, dated 72.11.2024.

4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she has filed an appeal, dated 16. 11.2024 belore the Regiona-l Director-Appellate Authority of the Municipal Administration, challenging the said final intimation letter, dated 72.11.2024 and the same is pending with the Regional Director concerned. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.2 came to the spot and locked the main gate on 21.12.2024. Despite the specific request, respondent No.2 did not open the said main gate. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal in terms of Section 252 (2) of the Telangana Municpalities Act, 2019 I W.l'.No. l2lti of 2 4 (for short 'thc. Act, 2Ol9') before the Regional Director of the Munir;iparl Administration, challenging the final intimation lctter, dated 12.1I.2024. The Regional Director-Appcllate Authority has to dispose ol the said appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the appeal. He is not ,lisposing of the same. However, respondent No.2 cannoi lock the main gate of the subject premises. I[

3.d floor is unauthorized construction, he h:_rs to take steps in ac,:ordance with law. But, he cannot lock the main gate ol the subject property.

6. h.r the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petitior-r is disposed ol' directing the Regional Director-Appellate Authority ol thc Municipal Administration to rlispose of the appeal iilecl by the petitioner, dated 16.11.2024 challenging the final intimation letter, dated 12.11.2024, within thirtl' (30) days from the date of receipt o[ a cop-y of this order in lerms of Section 252 (21 of the Act, 2019. In the meanr.t,hile, respondent No.2 shall unlock the main gatc. However, petitioner shall not use the ll"r [oor, .- -) KL,J W.P.No.l238 of 2025 unauthorized construction, failing which, liberty 1S granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner. Till the disposal of the said appeal, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 shall maintain status quo with regard to the 3.d floor of the subject property in all respects. However, petitioner shall not proceed with any further construction in deviation to the said building permit order, dated 22.02.2024, failing which, libetty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIOT{ OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 b BM MP The Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban. Development, Deoartment, Governm6nt of Telarigana, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad' itre Municipat Commissioner. Peddamberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. i*o CCt to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telanlana at Hyderabad. IOUJI - One CC to SRI S. VIJAYA PRASHANTH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI S. RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. for Municipalities [OPUC] Two CD Copies f^- HIGH COURT DATED:1010,112025 ORDER WP.No.1238 of 2025 ) r- S1 4re ir, ?.ok 19 FEB 2[[ P * ,.lsspATC t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "^ar((d&-