High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep , Qy its Prl., Secretary, Administration, Telangana Secreltariat, Hyderabad, TS The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Office at Tankbund, Hyderabad, T.S The Deputy Commissioner, G H M C, Circle No.20, West Zone Office at Serilingampally, R R Dist.,T.S Mohammed Shaibaz Naim Siddiqui, Slo. Zalar Naim Siddiqui, aged 41 years, occ- Business Rl/o. H.No.9-4-62li 06, Nizam Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, TS Altaf Hasan, S/o. Late Shadab Hasan, aged 61 years, Occ- Business Rl/o. H No.9-4-621105, Nizam Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad,TS. Mohammad Abdul Moid, S/o. M A Hameed,aged 59 years, Occ- Business, Fi/o. H No.6-3-580,Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hydeiabad, T S-04 Mohammad Asim, S/o. lvlohammed Yousuf, aged 50 years, Occ- Doctor R!/o H No.1 3-6-437/A,i89l2,Khader Bagh, Hyderabad, TS. Smt.G.Vasundhara Devi, W/o. G.Venkateswar Rao, aged 85 years, Occ- Household, Fi/o.Plot No.16,J V Colony,Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist.,TS-32

9. Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, W/o. K.Nagabhushanam, Househo[d Fi/o.Plot No.l,Jayabushan Hospital, Mehdipatnam, HYderabad,TS-28 aged 85 Years, Occ- Santoshnagar Colony, ...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 I : pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N,4andamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly. the respondents No.3 in passing impugned order No.28357/TPS/SLPZi GHIVCI 2025, dated.22-O1-2025 without considering the approved final lay-out vie file hearing No. 11273lMP2/HUDA/ 1990. dated. 03-05-1993 issued by the HUDA in respect of land in Sy., No.11311 and 2, whether the plot No 152lA, admsg., 1 18.8 Sq., yards, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally lt/andal, Ranga Reddy Dist.,TG, whether the same is existing in the said approve final lay-out or not and confirming the building construction permission vide permit No. 376529/ GHMC/ 362012024 dated. 14-06-2024 and its previous holding permit Building permit vide No.3/C20l 115531 2018, dated. 1 1-07-2O18, even though no such plot is existing in the said lay-out is, as highly illegal, arbitrary, bad and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act and amounts to violation of Articles of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the respondent No.3 to revoke the above mentioned building permits granted in favor of the respondents No.4 and 5 and 6 forthwith by considering the approved final lay-out vie file bearing No. 11273lMP2lHUDAl'l990 dated. 03-05-1993 issued by the HUDA forthwith 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 pleased to suspend the impugned order vide No.28357/TPS/SLPZ/ GHMC/ 2025, dated.22lO112025 passed by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER r\ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.28OS of20125, ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and S. perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent Nos.4 to 9.

3. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot No. 1g, admeasuring 236 Sq. yards, in Sy.No.97/A, situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal, West Zone, GHMC Circle-2O. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 9 created sale deeds and claiming that they are the owners of plot No.152/A. Respondent No.6 has hled a I KL,J W.P.No.2805 ol 2025 2 suit vide O.S.No.277 of 2017 against petitioner and others for perpetual injunction. The same is pending. Petitioner has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.32 of 2Ol9 against respondent Nos.4 to 9 to declare the registered sale deeds executed by respondent Nos.4 to 9 in respect of Sy.No.152lA as null and void and also for perpetual injunction. The said suit is also pending. There a-re no interim orders in the aforesaid suits. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner herein that respondent Nos.4 to t have obtained building permit orders dated

11.O7.2018 and 23.O2.2O24 by way of misrepresentation of facts. She has submitted a representation dated

23.09.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 to 9. The sarne was not considered. Therefore, she has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.28357 of 2024. Vide order dated 15.70.2024 ff:ris Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated

23.09.2024 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in w KL,J W.P.No.2805 of 2O2S 3 accord.ance with law, by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 9 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, he sha-ll complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

4. In compliance with the said order respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 22.U,.2025 stating that on verifying the ofhce records it was found that permission is accorded to respondent Nos.4 to 9 upon satisfring the pima facie tifle and possession of respondent Nos.4 to 9 over the subject property and presently construction is going on in the subject site, according to the plan. If there is any deviation, respondent No.3 wil consider the same, in accordance with law. Challenging the said order petitioner hled the present writ petition.

5. Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 did not consider the representation KL,J W.P,No.2805 of 2025 i{ i,l 4 submitted bv the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has also not considered the aspect that respondent Nos'4 to 9 have created documents' However, she has already filed a suit vide O.S.No.32 of 2Ol9 against respondent Nos'4 to 9 seeking to declare the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.4 to 9 in respect of plot No' 152/A as null and void and also for perpetual injunction and the said suit is pending. He also specifica'ily stated that the aforesaid. plot No. 152 lA is not in existence and there is no such plot.

6. Instead of pursuing the said suit, she has submitted a representation dated O3.01'2025 to respondent No'3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos'4 to g. However, respondent No'3 after following due procedure laid down under law passed orders dated

22.01.2025 holding that on satisfying tine pimafacie title and possession of respondent Nos.4 to 9, GHMC has accorded permission to them and they are proceeding with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said KL,J W.P.No.2805 of 2025 5 building permit orders. There is no deviation. If there is any deviation he will take action against respondent Nos.4 to 9, in accordance with law. It is a reasoned order and well founded.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty ls granted to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/.P. CH, NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC tO SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 3110112025 ORDER WP.No.2805 of 2025 ( t O tl1 2 4 fld 2025 z L^)) l r,- jr]n r Cv\ aP t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS