High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in not removing the encroachment made by the sth respondent on the road and drainage situated at Azampura, Jogipet lvlunicipal Limits, Jogipet, Sanga Reddy District is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Telangana It/ un icipa lities Act and violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner consequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to remove the illegal construction of the Sth respondent in the above said road and drainage. 7 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 to direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to remove the illegal construction of the 5th respondent the encroachment made by the Sth respondent on the road and drainage situated at Azampura, Jogifiet Municipal Limits, Jogipet, Sanga Reddy District, forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER MPCL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRI T PETITION No.1393 of2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing lbr the petltloner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing lbr respondent No.3. Perused the rer:orcl'

2. in view of the nattlre ol reliel sought bv the petitioner, this Writ Petition is clisposed ol at the admissron stage dispensing with notice to respondent No.5.

3. Petitioner is resident of Azampura, Jogipet, Sanga Reddy district, within respondent No.3 - Municipalitv. Respondent No.5 is also resident of the verY same area and he is making construction by occupying the road leading to the petitioner's house by 12 leet widttt. Petitioner ar-rd residents of colony are l'acing problem due to the saici un- au thorized construction by responclent No.5. Therefore, he has submitted representations, dated IiL..J W.P.Nrr. 1393 of 2025 O7-O2-2O2.| a:nd 12.07.2024 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectivel\, \vith a request to take action against Respondenl No.S. Despite receiving and acknowledgrng tl're said representation, respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.3 and 4, petitioner filed the present writ petrtlon.

4. Perusal ol record would reveal that tl-rough the petrtloncr IS contending that he has submitted representatlons. dated O7-O2-2O24 and 12.07.2O24 to rcsponder.rt Nos.3 ald 4 respectively, he has not filed proof ol submissi.on of said representations on respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, he cannot fiie the present u,nt pctrtion alleging non-consideral ion of the said represc'ntations. 5 Whi:reas. Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearlng for respondent No.3, on instructions, would submit that petitibner has to submit a liL,.l W.P.No. 1:lgli o1 2025 representation to respondent No.3 and on receipt of the same, respondent No.3 will inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner are lbuncl to be true, respondent No.3 will take action against Respondent No.5, strictiy in accordance with the procedure lelid clown uncler the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20 19 bv putting the petitioner and Respondent No'5 on noticc tlnd alforc[ng them an opportunitv of hearing.

6. ln the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation with respondent No'3 alleging that respondent No.5 is proceeding with construction bv occupving the road and on receipt o1' the said representation, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and inspect the site and if the allegations made bv the petitioner is lbund to be true, he shall take action against Respondent No.5, strictiy in accord'ance with the procecLure laid down under the Telangana Munrcipalities I , --! IiL..J W.P-No. 1393 of 2025 l Act. 2019 lrr,, putting thc petitioner and Respondent No.5 on notice :rnd affording them an opportunitv of hearing. Tl-rerc shall bc no order as to costs As ir sequel. the misceilaneous petitions, i[ any, pencling in thc Writ Petition shail stald ciosed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI T EGISTRAR ASSIST S N OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District at Sanga Reddy. The Commissioner, Jogipet Municipality, Jogipet, Sanga Reddy District. The Tahsildar, Jogipet lMandal, Jogipet, Sanga Reddy District. One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR |\,{PCL [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 3 4 E 6 7 BI PSK. GJP $ HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 ORDER WP.No.1393 of 2025 s1 L IS r e t d ortEB 2125 i o E ?S AT c 7 a * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ef{' W