1. Ahmed Memorial Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the.petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to not interfere with the ownership, possession and occupation and not to take steps to demolish the petitioner No.1's buitding constructed on the land admeasuring Ac. 1.10 Gts in Sy. I,lo. 103/1 5, Bandlaguda Village, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy including by suspending the operation oi the speaking order dated 2510112025 bearing Notice No. 103/TPS/C1 1/RJNR/GHMC/2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and all action sought to be undertaken in relation to the same pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. VENKATESH, SR. COUNSEL REp. FOR SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNtCtpAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR HYDRAA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRJJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3556 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner No.l is a Muslim Minority Educational Society created for establishment of Higher Educational Institutions and petitioner No.2 is its Secretary. The society had purchased land to an extent of Acs.l.l0 guntas in Survey No.l03/15, situated at Bandlaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5 434 of 2002, dated

26.07.2002. Petitioner No. I Sociery has constructed buildings without obtaining permission either from the then Gram Panchayat or from the GHMC. Thus, the said construction is unauthorized construction. Petitioner No. I society is running educational institutions in the subject property. It had submitted applications dated 24.03.2008 and

16.07.2008 seeking regularization under LRS, while applications 2 KL,-I w P No.1556 of2025 dated 24.03.2008 and 15.07.2008 seeking regularization under BPS with respondent No.2. They have also paid an amorrnt of Rs.4,64,1 50/- towards fee. It has also submitted another app lication dated 3 1 .01 .20 16 seeking regularization under LRS by par.ing an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The said applications are pending'

3. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nc'2 has issued a show-cause notice dated 02-01.2025 alleging tha: thc pe titioner society has made illegal and unauthorized construction of Ground + 3 Upper Floors without maintaining setbacks, without taking permission from GHMC and running Islamia College of Law. Fifteen (15) days time was granted to the petitioners to submit explanation The petitioners have submitted explanation on 21.01.2025 On consideration of the same, respondent No.1 has passed speaking order dated 25.01.2025 directing the petitioners to rcmovrr the illegal and unauthorized construction within fifteen (,l5) days. Challenging the said speaking order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition'

4. Penrsal of record would reveal that respon,Cent No.-] herein has issued a Notice dated 23 .01.2025 stating that it has come to its notice that the petitioners have constructed the building on litigated in Survey No.103/15, Bandlaguda Village and ,/ 3 KIJ 1^, P No 3556 of2o25 Mandal,Hyderabad and directed the petitioners to submit copies of the following documents: i) Copy of Sanctioned Plan & its Proceedings; ii) Copy of Registered Documents of Property; iii) Copy of Link Documents; iv) Copy oflaYout Plan; and v) Details of Court Cases (If anY). Three (03) days time was granted to the petitioners' They have submitted explanation along with copies of documents on29'01'2025' Without considering the same, respondent No'3 is trying to demolish the subject ProPertY.

5. As discussed above, the petitioners themselves have admitted that they have made construction without obtaining permission from the competent authority' They have submitted the aforesaid five (05) applications under LRS and BPS seeking regularization of the same by paying the aforesaid amounts' The said applications are Pending'

6. Speaking order dated 25'01'2025 of respondent No'2 is an appealable order in terms of Section - 655 of the GHMC Act' 1955' It is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned speaking order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural 4 (L,J W P I'o 3556 of2025 justice and without following the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of altemative remedy of appeal.

7. Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.3 has considered the documents and explanation dated 29 .01 .2025 submitted by the petitioners and dropped further action

8. Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel tbr GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the Comrnissioner, GHMC is the competent authority to consider the aforesaid LRS and BPS applications submitted by the petitioners seeking regulari;:ation of unauthorized construction. He will consider and dispose it ol in accordance with law.

9. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner, GHMC to dispose of the applications dated 24.03.2008, 16.07.2008 and

31.01.2016 seeking regularization under LRS and applications dated

24.03.2008 and 15.07.2008 seeking regularization under RPS, and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by pu ning the petitioner socicty on notice and affording it an opportunity ol- hearing Y 5 KI,J w P No 3556 oa2025 if the said applications are not disposed of. If the Commissioner, GHMC is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioners, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate copy of the same to the petitioners. He shall complete the entire exercise within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, the petitioners shall prefer an appeal challenging the speaking order dated

25.01.2025 in terms of Section - 655 of the GHMC Act before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt ofcopy of this order. Ifthe petitioners fail to prefer the appeal within the aforesaid timelines, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioners pursuant to the said speaking order dated 25.01.2025- Till then, the impugned speaking order dated 25.01.2025 of respondent No-2 shall not be given effect. 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. /ffRUE COPY// SD/. P. PAD MANABHA REDDY REGTSTRAR ASSIs ON OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department' The State of Telangana' 'Ilfl Bj:3i#?sB{1lxi"'"rffi r+:l'f s',""T'"yJJ'':f#"'"d8ff 1f "ilf"""' 'i#{igi#i*E?',v;HXRffi "lif s-r#:'?',".?l:tla"f'%LT6'li#:* ;,$*[**r'mruffu$'*ql*lttl'*rlffi*$in' 8. Two CD CoPies o HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER WP.No.3556 of 2025 rHE STA I4- e t) 1i Fiii 2025 ((r z a -a * ,,)FSPATcH g(, * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a 1A