SYED ASGAR v. THE STATE OF TELENGANA

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No 1 to 3 to demolished illegal and unauthorized construction carrying out by the Respondents no 4 and 5, in the premises bearing House bearing no 19-3-1089/A"/78 , admeasuring 200.00 Square Yards which is equivalent lo 167.22 Square lVleters, situated at Madina colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, T.S having PTI No 1051903106, by revoking and cancelling the permission and sanction plan as per TS-bPASS act 2020, for the violation of the conditions as per clause 5 f (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vii) (xi)and (xiv) of GOMs. No 168 , MA and UD Dated 07-04-2012, pending disposal of civil suit , causing damages to the property of the Petitioner, by obtaining Gl MC permission and Sanction ptan oy fraud, by submitting false, fabricated doc;uments considering the above stated facts and reasons in the interest of justice and pass orders as per law and pass 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.direct the Respondents no 1 to 3 to take immediate appropriate action against the Respondents no 4 and 5 to stop the illegal and unauthorized c;onstruction carrying out 6y the Respondents no 4 and 5, in the premises bearing House bearing no 19- 3-10tig/A/78, admeasuring 200.00 Square Yards which is equivalent to 167 .22 Square Meters, situated ai Madina colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, T.S having PTI No 1051903106, by revoking and cancelling the permission and sanction plan as per TS-BpASS aci2OZO, for the violation of the conditions as per clause 5 (i) 0 iiti) (iv) (u) (vii) (xi) (xiv) of GOMS. No 168 , MAandUD Dated 07-04-20/2.pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SYED AHMED ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent NOs.2&3: SRI RAPARTHI VENFIATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3406 of202s: ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for 2"d and 3'd respondents.

2. Petitioner and 13 others had filed a suit vide O.S.No.4921 of 2023 against 4'h respondent and 13 oth'ers seeking partition and separate possession of rnatruka properry and also for cancellation of registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No-1269 of 2022 dated 29'03'2022' The aforesaid suit was filed in October, 2023' ln the said suit' 4fr respondent had entered her appearance and also filed written statement. Thus, on receipt of notice in the said suit an{ entering appearance, during pendency of the said suit' 4fr respondent has executed registered sale deed bearing document No.3974 of 2023 dated 05'12'2023 in favour of 5'h resp&r{ent. Vide ordet dated 3l'12'2024 ifl I'A'No'947 of aq&t I 2 KL. J w P.No 3406 of 2025 2024 in O.S.No.492l of 2023,leamed XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, restrained 46 respondenV2nd defendant in the said suit, her associates.and all other persons acting on her behalf from carrying out any further construction in the suit schedule property or changing the nature of suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. According to petitioner, the said order attained finality. 4ft respondent has not preferred any appeal against the said order.

3. Basing on the said sale deed dated 05.12'2023, 5th respondent has obtained building permit order dated

01.06.2024 fbr construction of Stilt for parking + 2 Upper Floors. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 10.08.2024 to Deputy Commissionen, Charminar Division, Circle X, GHMC, Hyderabad, with a request to stop 5'h respondent from making the illegal construction. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said represell.ation, Deputy Commissioner did not act upon the same. Therelbre, petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. 3 KL, J W.P.No.3406 ot 2O25

4. As discussed supra, aforesaid suit vide O'S'No'4921 of 2023 filedby petitioner and 13 others against 4fr respondent and 13 others seeking partition of suit schedule property and cancellation of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated

29.03.2022, is pending. Vide order dated 3l'12'2024' learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' restrained 4ft respondent, her associates and all other Persons acting on her behalf from carrying out any further construction in the suit schedule property or changing the nature of the stiit schedule property. It is the specific allegation of petitioner that on receipt ofthe notice in the said suit and during pendency of the said suit, 4'h respondent has executed Sale Deed dated

05.12.2023 in favour of 5th respondent' On the strength of the same, 5th respondent has obtained the aforesaid building permit order dated 07.06.2024 from GHMC for construction of Stilt for parking + 2 Upper Floors' Even then' petitioner did not take steps to implead 5ft respondent as parry respondent in the present Writ Petition. If 5ft respondent is proceeding with the construction in violation of aforesaid order dated \ l 4 KL. J w.P No 3406 of 2025 3t.12.2024 in I.A.No.941 of 2024 in O.S.No.4921 of 2023 passed by the leamed XX leamed Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, petitioner shall take steps including filing of an application under C)rder XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC against 4'h and 5e respondents. But, he cannot submit a representation to Deputy Commissioner, GIIMC, with a request to take action against 4h and 5th respondents, and file the present Writ Petition alleging non-consideration of the said representatlon.

5. It is illso relevant to note that petitioner has submitted aforesaid representation dated 10.08.2024 to Deputy Commissioner, Charminar Division, GHMC, Circle X, Hyderabad. But, he has filed the present Writ Petition against Commissioner, GHMC and Assistant City Planner, Charminar. Without submitting the said representation to 2nd and 3'd respondents, he cannot file the present Writ Petition alleging non-consideration of the said representation. However, GHMC authorities will consider only three aspects i.e., i) misrepresentation/suppression of far:ts, ii) false i" -* 4"rr/ 5 KL, J w P.No 3406 of 2025 statement, if any, made by the applicant and iii) construction in deviation to the building permit order. Further, they will consider the application seeking permission for construction in terms of the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and TG-bPASS Act, 2020' 6 In the light ofthe above, petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less, the relief sought in the present Writ Petition' Petitioner has to pursue the aforesaid suit and on obtaining order against 5th respondent, he shall approach the respondent Corporation with a request to implement the same' 7 Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. A. SRINIVASA EDDY ASSISTANT RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CCto SRI. SYEDAHMEDALI Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIVN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies KKS GJP $ HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER WP.No.3406 of 2025 e STAj€ I ^.rt c 23 APt{ 2[25 \"-, \--.r\- ED J (- ) A., DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS e) I P W@ce