The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 or the constitution of rndia praying that in the 'u" circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c&rt ,rv 'oie pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or oirection, mo re the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the highhanded aciion oi ft,d oni.i"l I-",:qo.l!^"lt: in issuing the Speaking OiOers vije Roc.No.G1/2432t2024 iced 0710112'025 based upon the false, baieless, concocted, frivolous and vindictive complaint of the Respondent No- 3 against the petitioner without considering ihe representations / expranation / repry dated o3ro1r202s againii ffi-.ri,i""t property in H.No.40, admeasuring 230.63 Sq.yds equivarent tJtsz.es sq. naiJ, in survey No. 40 situated at Edra wada. Garmiila Shivar, within the iimits' ot Mancherial Municiparity as iilegar, arbitrary, unjust, viorative of the iri""iJr". or Natural Justice, violative of Ftindamental Rights'guaranteed to the petitioners and -of thl constitution of lndia and arso violative of Article ia, i9(1xg) and 300-4 contrary to the provisions contemprated under the Terangana rrrrrnr"ipuriti"" n"t, consequentty set aside the speaking orders vide Roc.No.G1/2a3ifzoaiiiLa , 071O112025 issued by the Respondenitrto. Z. rticutarrv . ,. illia-": - r / / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit-filed-in support of the peiitio;, ihliign Court may O" pl*.Lj grant stay of ar[ further proceedings pursuant to thJ impugneo sp"rring-ori"r. " vide Roc.No.G112432-12024 dared-}7'to1t2ozs issuea oy tlne nesoonJ"it r.r". z :s3l:t^lhg subject property in H.No. 40, admeasuring iso.oe sq.yo, to 192.83 Sq. Mts. in survey No.40 situaied riLal, WiO", Crrriiln,SnirJi'riinin "qri"ulnt the limits of Mancheriar rvuniciparity, p""Jing ai.p*ar of main writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI S. LAKSHMI KANTH counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADMrNrsrRATroN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALIry The Court made the following: ORDER l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETTTION No.1983 of2O25 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.18, admeasuring 230.63 square yards in Sy.No.40, situated at respondent No.2 municipality under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2387 of 2022 dated

29.01.2022. She has obtained building permit order dated 12'05'2022 from respondent No.2 for construction of Ground + 1 Upper Floor' According to the petitioner, she has completed construction' The subject property was assessed, house number was allotted and she has been paying property tax to the respondent No.2. She is in possession of the subject property. Respondent No.3, her neighbor started making construction in deviation to the building permit order by encroaching into road. Therefore, petitioner has submitted representation to the respondent No.2 with a request to take action against respondent No.3. Instead of taking action against respondent No.3, on the complaint lodged by respondent No'3, respondent No'2 i 2 has issued show cause notice dated 19.12.2024 stating that petitioner has made r:onstruction in deviation to the aforesaid buitding permit order. she has submitted explanation on 03.0r.2025. without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 videsp,,:aking order dated 07'01'.2025 directed the petitioner to remove tr.re deviated portion and unauthorized construction of 2nd floor of the subject property. Challenging the said speaking ordei, petitioner filed the present writ pt:tition.

3. .4s discussed supra, petitioner has obtained the aforesaid building pemrit order dated, 12.05.2022 for construction of ( iround + 1 upper Froor' lt is the specific alregation against the petitioner herein that she has made construction in deviation to the said buildrng permit order and also .2nd floor unauthorizedly. The said deviated portion is specifically mentioned in the tabular form in the said show cause notice as well as in the said speaking order. petitioner disputing the sarne. According to the petition, she has constr,rcted the buirding strictrv in accordance with the building permit order dated 12.05.2022 and there is no deviation. The said aspects are: faslual aspects. Therefbre, this Court cannot consider the said factual aspects in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution c,f India. herein / J 3 If, petitioner is aggrieved by the said speaking order, she has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252 Q) of the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 before the Regional Director/Appellate Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has passed impugned I I \ ) speaking order dated 07.01.2025 in violation of principles of natural justice and also procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of altemative remedy.

4. In the light of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252 (2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 within ten (10) days from today. On filing such appeal, appellate authority shall decide the same within thirty (30) days from the date of preferring the appeal in terms of Section 252 (2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Till then, respondent No.2 is directed not to give effect to the speaking order dated 07.01.2025. However, it is made clear rhat, if petitioner fails to prefer an appeal with the aforesaid ten (10) days, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequol, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD EGISTRAR ASSI SEC N OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Department of Municipal 2. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, Office of lvlunicipal Council Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Mancherial, Mancherial District.

3. One CC to SRI S. LAKSHMI KANTH; Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC for MUNICIPALITY [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BN BS HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 ORDER WP.No.1983 of 2025 )

2.-: 1\', r: S T,q 7- I/<( t t,- -l 0 ixt{ fl6 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7