V. Devaraj, S/o Mr v. Sreeramulu, Aged about

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directron, more parlicularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondent in not acting upon the building application bearing No.0'13850/GHMC|6342|SLP2|2O24-BP dt.12.12.2124 of the petitioners despite lapse of more than (40) days as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of TS-bPass Act, 202O and Article 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to 2 grant deemed permission letter in respect of building application of the petitioners bearing No.013850/GHMCl6342l SLP2|2O24-BP dt.12.12.20241or the construction of building comprising of stilt plus 5 upper floors situated in Plot No.B4 in Survey No.124 and 125, admeasuring 708 square yards or 592 square meters, situated at Gachibowli vitlage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with law. lA 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 pteased to direct the respondents to grant deemed permission letter in respect of building application of the petitioners bearing No.013850/GHMC/6342/SLp,nO24-Bp dt.12.12.2024 for the construction of building comprising of stilt + 5 upper floors situated in Plot No.84 in Survey No. 124 and 125, admeasuring 708 square yards or 592 square metres, situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diitrict, in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIR| Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM|NISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC Between: WRIT PETITION NO: 3 5975 0F 2024 Sg1lhya Hotels Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at SY No. 124-125, Sandhya Constructions and Estates Private Limited, Gachibowli, lndra Nagar, Ranga Reddy Hyderabad, SOOO32 TG lN, Represented by its Managing Director,S. Sreedhar nao, S/ir. S. Babu Rao ...PETITIONER ]+ AND t 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developmeht Departmeht, Telangand Secretariat, Hyderabad. Ing Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 3 4 The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, GHMC. T.he Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 6 5 The Additional Chief City Planner, Serilingampally Zone, GHMC. !f, Dgvaraj, S/o Mr V. Sreeramulu, Aged about 63 years, Occ Business, F/o. Plot No. 42, Public Sector Colony, Boinpally Post, S6cunderabad 5000.1 1. 7. V. Kalyani, W/g, V Devaraj, Aged about 55 years, Occ Housewife, Flio. Plot No. 42, Public Sector Colony, Boinpally Post, Secunderabad 50001 1. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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, one more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A declaring the building permission issued by the Refndent No. 2 to Respondent No. 6 and 7 bearing dated O2-O2-2022/bearing permit No. 2046/ GH MC/SLP 12022-BP in File No. 005050/c H MC t 27 S 1 t SLp 2t2021 -Bp as arbitrary, illegal and granted as the same is without localizing the plot of the Respondent 6 and 7; B. further declare the action of the Respondents 3 to 5 in permitting the illegal construction activity of the Respondents 6 and 7 in the land of the petitioner in Plot No. 83 in FCI Society, covered under Sy. No. 124 and 125 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 4 Petition under Section i s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to forthwith stop aI construction activities being undertaken for construction of Ground + 5 froors in prot No. g4, in sy. No. 124 and 125, situated at Gachibowri Viilage, seriringampafly Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI M. ANTSH SATHYA KAMAL counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADMrNrsrRATroN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDy; S.C, FOR GHMC counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: sRr sHREyAs REDDy YALAGTRT The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER i {i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.2O93 of 2o25 and 35975 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.2093 of 2025 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.35975 of 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.35975 of 2024, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri G, Madhusudhan, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). Perused the record.

2. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.35975 of 2024 are the petitioners in W.P. No.2O93 of 2025, wherein M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited is the petitioner. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.35975 of 2024. W.P.Nos.2093 of 2025 and 35975 of 2024 2

3. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 petitioners in W.P. No.2093 of 2025, are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot No.84, admeasuring 7OB Sq.yds 1n Sy.Nos. 124 and 125, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sa-le deed bearing document No.20963 of 2006, dated 19.10.2006. They have obtained building permit order, dated 02.02.2022 for constmotion of residential building consisting of 1 Stilt+ 5 Upper Floors.

4. As per the said building permit order, they have to commence construction on or before O2.O8.2O22 and complete the same on or before O2.O2.2O25. They are contending that they have commenced the construction on or before O2.O8.2O22. Even then, respondent No.3 and the Deputy City Planner, at the instance of the petitioner, demolished the said structures on 05. 12.2024 and also \ remo\ed the lencing ald tin shed etc., without following due procedure laid down under law. Challenging the said KL.J W.P.Nos.2093 of 2025 and 35975 of 2024 3 action, respondent Nos.6 and T filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.34503 of 2024.

5. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 06.12.2024, on which date learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein failed to commence the constrrrction on or before O2.O8.2O22. They have started recently without obtaining fresh permission or renewing tfre earlier permission. They have not even sought extension of time for commencing of fresh construction. Therefore, considering their construction as unauthorized, removed the same. On consideration of the said aspect s, uid.e order, dated 06. I2.2O24, this Cor:rt disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein to approach the GHMC Authorities by submitting application afresh duly pa)4ng required fees for construction pursuant to the building permit order dated O2.O2.2O22 within ten (10) days from the date of said order,;1nd on hling such application, respondent No.3 KL,J, W.P.Nos.2093 of 2025 and35975 of 2024 4 sha,ll consider the sarne and take a decision within four (O4) weeks thereafter. Till then, respondent Nos.6 and 7 were directed not to proceed with construction, failing which, liberty was granted to the GHMC Authorities to take action against them in accordance with law. However, this Court also directed the GHMC Authorities not to dispossess respondent Nos.6 and 7 lrerein from the subject property.

6. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 would contend that in compliance with the said order, they have submitted fresh application on 12.12.2024 by making payment of Rs.1O,OOO/- vide receipt No.TS/3555712024 to respondent No.3. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application, the GHMC Authorities did not act upon the same. Therefore, challenging the said inaction of respondent No.3, respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed the aforesaid W.P.No.2O93 of 2025. KL.J W.P.Nos.2093 ol 2025 and 3597 5 of 2024 5

7. The Petitioner in W.P.No.35975 of 2024 hled the said writ petition to declare the building permission obtained by respondent Nos.6 and 7 as illegal.

8. Whereas, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that there are disputes between the petitioner and unofficia-l respondents with regard to the subject property. However, respondent No.3 will consider the pima facie title of unofficia-l respondents while considering the application dated 12.12.2024 submitted by them. He will also afford an opportunity to both the parties.

9. At this stage, Sri Y. Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, has produced building permit orders, dated 19.08.2024 and 28.L2.2024 obtained by the petitioner 1n W.P.No.35975 of 2024 for construction of residential building consists of 1 Cellar + 1 Stilt + 5 Upper Floors to an extent of 1506.47 square meters in respect of Plot W.P.Nos.2093 ol 2025 and 35975 o12024 KL 6 Nos.91, 92, 95 and 96 arrd commercial complex consistingof2Ceilars+lGround+4UpperFloorstoan extent of 3517'35 square meters in respect of Plot Nos.103, 104, 10s, 106' 147' 148' l4g' l50' 151 and 152 in Survey Nos'124 and 125 of Gachibowli Village' respectively, whereas' respondent Nos'6 and 7 are claiming ownership in respect of Plot No'84' admeasuring 7O8 square yards in the very salne survey numbors of Gachibowli Village'

10. Referring to paragraph No'7 of the writ affrdavit' the petitioner specihcally would learned counsel for contend about the disputes with regard to Plot Nos'159' 160, 161, 162, 15 and 16 in the very sarne survey number.IthasalsosubmittedrepresentationtotheCity Assistalt Planner narrating the said facts with a request not to issue building permission to respondent Nos'6 and 7. However, it has to submit the said representation to trle Zonal C o mm i s sro ne r' Serilingam p ally Z<>oe' GHMC' KL.J W.P.Nos.2093 o12025 and 35975 of 20)4 7

11. In the light of the said submissions, both the writ petitions are disposed of directing the ZonaJ Commissioner, Serilingampatly Zone, GHMC i'e', respondent No.3 in both writ petitions to consider the application dated 12.12.2024 submitted by the petitioners in W.P.No.2O93 of 2025 a-long with receipt/challan No.TS/35557 12024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by putting the petitioners in both writ petitions on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. He shall consider the aforesaid aspects, more particularly, the aspect of the petitioner in W.P.No.35975 of 2025 obtaining the aforesaid two building permit orders dated 19.08 -2024 and 2a'12'2024 in respect of the aforesaid plots and the claim of respondent Nos.6 and 7 that they are the owners of plot No.84, admeasuring 708 Sq.yds in Sy.Nos' 124 and 125 of Gachibowli village. However, liberty is also granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.35975 of 2024 to submit written representations, if any, before respondent No'3' Liberty is also granted to both the petitioners in both writ t I i t W.P.Nos.2093 of 2025 and 35975 of 2024 K 8 petitions to raise all the grounds arrd contentions which they have raised 1n the present writ petition before respondent No.3 and it is for respondent No.3 to consider the same and take decision in accordance with law. However, he shall complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy 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 both the writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYAS ASSISTANT REGIS E SECTION OFFICER I To, I I 1 2 #?J,JlH'sil8,"f T:?',3)g?:iJHf :[#:13'4##i]ill",'j""?andUrban The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

3.TheZonalCommissioner,serilingampallyZone'GHMC,Hyderabad 4. The Deputy City Planner, Serilingampally Zone' GHMC' Hyderabad 5. The Chief CitY Hyderabad. Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation'

6.TheAdditionalChiefCityPlanner'SerilingampallyZone'GHMC 7. One CC to M/s Y SHREYAS REDDY' Advocate [OPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP for-Municipal Administration. and.Urban Development' High 9. One CC to SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' S C for GHMC [OPUC] 'l0.One CC to SRI tl4 ANISH SATHYA KAMAL' Advocate [OPUC] Court for the State ol r eiJngana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD CoPies 6 HIGH COURT DATED:301O112025 ( t o i'rlE 5 r,{ r4- 2 4 Fr; IUIJ t 1Fsr,;.16Htr-Q I (( C. COMMON ORDER W.P.Nos.2093 OF 2025 AND 35975 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS cof'^ \u k*