High Court · 2025

Jagadish Parivar, Sio. Mohan Lai, Aged 55 years, Occupatio G-4, Srinivasa Homes, Bandari Layout, Sy. No. 24, 25 and 2 Nizampet, Medchal lValkajgiri District. n. B o,J usiness, R/o y. No 254, 5 Natha Ram Parihar, S/o. I\,4ohan Lal Aged 54 years, Occupation. Business, R/o G-4, Srinivasa Homes, Bandari Layout, Sy. No.24,25 and 26, Sy. No 254, Nizampet, Medchal I\,4alkajgiri District. ..RESPONDENTS 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 bleasea6Esud?fr-r;ii,:oroei ffi;eAion-ifio'r;T-rrti6uiarti one in tre i-ailie oi ilit of Mandamus to declare the inaction of Respondent No.2 and 3 in taking action, pursuant to the Complaints, dated 25.10.2022, 30.09.2023 and 16.1j.2023, against the Respondent No. 4 and 5, for their illegal construction with deviations, without maintaining any set backs, no fire safety installation, without any construction permission, constructed the residential cum commercial complex over / the Plot No. 24,25 and 26, in sy. No. 254, situated at Nizampet Village, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, t\,4edchal [Valkajgiri District,as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of consfitution of lndia and consequentially direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to take action against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 for the illegal construction, forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under sectron 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass interim directions on the respondent No.2 and 3 to take action against the respondent No.4 and 5 for illegal action without any permission over the subject property i.e. the Plot No. 24, 25 and 26, in Sy. No. 254, situated at Nizamapet Village, Nizampet lr,4unicipal corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri District, forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONGALA MOHAN GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/S D. MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5:-- The Court made the following: ORDER // /, / I HON'BLE SRI.IUST'ICI] K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.16l2 OF 2025 OIIAL ORDEII: Ileard leamed counsel lbr the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Reddy Putta, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mrs. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the absolute owners and possessors of apartment house bearing No.3-83/2/A (North Side Irarr) on Plot Nos.24, 25 and 26 Part admeasuring233.33 square yards out of 723 square yards in Survey No.254, situated at Nizampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Distr-ict. They have entered into a notarized development agreement- curn-MOU-GPA dated12.03.2019 with the petitioner for development of the aforesaid properly. According to the petitioner, it has completed construction in accordance with building permit order obtained fi'om respondent No.3 Municipality. lt appears that thereafter some disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. The Managing Partner of the petitioner i.e., Mr. A. Kotaiah has filed a suit vide O.S. No.259 of 2020 against respondent I Nos.3 to 5 and others seeking mandatory injunction directing respondent No.3 Municipality and its Officials etc. to invoke Section _ 178 of the Telangana Municipalities Act,20l9 to demolish the illegal construction. The said suit is pending. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also filed a suit vide O.S. No. 128 of 2019 against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction and leamed principal Junior Civil Judge at Medchal vide order dated I9.09.2019 in I.A. No.g30 of 2019 in O.S. No.l28 of 2019 granted status quo. The said suit is also pending and the said statzs quo order is subsisting.

3. The petitioner herein has submitted a representation dated

30.09.2023 to respondent No.3 stating that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are proceeding with construction and the said construction is unauthorized. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Mr. Krishna Reddy putta, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has produced written instructions of respondent No.3 stating that according to the physical inspection and the Tou,n planning Authorities and complaints of ,I / 44- / -) KL,J W.P. No.l6l2 of2025 respondent Nos.4 and 5, issued show-cause notice to the permit holder vide office No.GlfuC/W.No.l0/l UNMCI2022, dated 21j0.2022 against the sanctioned plan and raised extra floor and directed the permit holder to remove the said unauthorized construction of building within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The permit holder obtained construction from the then Gram Panchayat, Nizampet v ide permit No.Gp/3 4/20 I g- I 9 dated I 7.05.20 I g for construction of G + 2, whereas he constructed Ground * 3 Floors unauthorizedly. Hence, the Town planning Authorities issued a notice under Section - 452 (1) & 461 (l) of the HMC Act, 1955 directing the permit holder to remove the illegal structures, but he did not respond. Hence, respondent No.3 issued another notice No. 1 00/UC/N/TPSAIMC, dated I 6.09.20 19.

5. In O.S.No.259 of 2020 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, respondent No.3 is a pat-ty. Learned Junior Civil Judge granted status quo order after issuing permission and at the time of issuing, the permit holder and respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not inform the permit authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is baseless. Respondent No.3 issued notices and demorished the illegal structures on 01. I I .2022 by intimating under Section _ I 7g (3) of i t 4 Telengana Municipalities Act, 2019 to the Team Leaders ol District Task Force Cornrnittee, N{edchal Malkajgiri District vide l-r.No.Gl/31.+/XV/ DTF/TPSAIMC12}22. dated 3 1.10.2022. As per Section - 178 (3) and (4) olthe Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, respondent No.3 seized the constructed building and repofted to the Sub-Registrar. Quthbullapur, not to register illegal structures. They have also intimated to the llyderabad Water Works Department not to issue water connection till submission ol'Occupancy Certiflcate' In the rneantime , permit holders approached this Court and obtained stay orders. Respondent No.3 filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. The said written instructions are placed on record

6. Mr. Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Slanding Counsel for respondent No.3, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.3 has been conductir-rg special drive on the complaints received from the citizens with regard to unauthorized construction. However, respondent No.3 will consider the aforesaid representation dated

30.09.2023, inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be correct, he wilt take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid KL,J W.P. No.1612 of 2025 down under the Telangana Municipalities Act., 2019 by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. In the tight of the same, notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 30.09.2023 of the petitioner, inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be correct, he shail take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 by following the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2OI9 by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, he shall not consider inter se disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. He shall complete the entire exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt ofcopy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. \ To, 1 //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary. Munrcipal Administratton and Urban Department, Telansa na Secreta riat. The Staie "f i;i; ;;;;;' H;aliaoao. I I \ Nagar. I\,4edchat Malkaiqiri District.

2. The Commisstone_r, Hyderabad Metropolitan Develooment Authoritv o/o ,' - - . :yaTa Jayanthr Complex, SR Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad _ 82 J. r ne uommtsstoner, Nizampet Municipal Corporatioh, Nizamapet_pragathi 4. One CC to Sri KonoatiMohan Goud, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to Gp foiMunicipat Admrni;iA;;;lior-n o&'uroprent, High Courr - for the State of Telangana, at HyderanaO iOUii-- 6. one CC to Sri Krishna Reddy plJtta, SCIOPUC1 7. One CC to M/s D. Madhavi. SC for HIVOhIOFI'C] B. Two CD Copies TJ GJP e4 I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 f ( ORDER WP.No.1612 of 202 o i{ OF >.\ ';t "tt.. .'1, jl r J o z !, + ,.:) / :t 'l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS --n---.--:-<G-F- \ { W