Smt. Vege Chandrika v. The State of Telangana

4. Siddi Vinayaka Welfare Owners Association, Repres--ented Qy ilq Prys-1Q91J, Sri S.Laxmi Narayana, S/o. Laxmaiah, having its office at H. No. 2-58114' Suraram, IDA Jeedimetla, HYderabad ...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 pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (a) lssue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property vide Plot Nos 105 and 106 in Sy. No. 'l 05, admeasuring 707 square yards, situated at Siddivinayaka Nagar, Suraram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, by seeking to construct a park on 06.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, (b) Consequently, direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 105 situated at Siddivinayaka Nagar, Suraram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, without following due process of 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 pleased to issue directions to the Respondents restraining them from changing the nature of the subject land vide Plot Nos. 105 and 106 in Sy. No.'105, admeasuring 707 square yards, situated at Siddivinayaka Nagar, Suraram village, Qutbullapur Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI G.PREM KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3743 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. G. Prem Kumar, leamed counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of open plots bearing Nos.l05 and 106, admeasuring 707.77 sqtare yards ln Survey No.l05, situated at Siddivinayaka Nagar, Suraram Village under GHMC limits, Qutbullapur Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.256 of 1999, dated

22.01.1999. She has constructed a compound wall encircling the same. The petitioner and 2 others constructed compound wall without obtaining prior permission from the GHMC. Pursuant to the complaint dated I1.11.2024 given in Prajavani, respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 11.11.2024 directing the petitioner herein and 2 others to romove the compound wall within three (03) days. Challenging the same, the petitioner and 2 others i.e., Mr. N. Jitendra 2 KL.J w P No 3?41of2025 E and Mr. N. Yugendra, filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.32108 of

2024. On consideration of the said aspects, this Court, vide order dated 18.11.2024 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioners therein to remove the compound wall within three (03) days from the date ofsaid order. Liberty was also granted to them to pursue the suit O.S.No.593 of 2024 filed by them against respondent No.4 Association. Liberty was also granted to them to take all the grounds and contentions which they have raised in the writ petition in the said suit.

3. Learncd counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already removed the compound wall in compliance with the order dated 18.11 .2024 in W.P. No.32108 of

4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that during pendency of the said suit, at the instance of respondent No.4 association, respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess her from the subject plots without following due procedure laid down under. Challenging the said action of respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. l KT*I w.P. No.3743 of2025

5. Whereas, Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the subject plots are earmarked as parks in the Layout of the then Gram Panchayat' Suraram Village. Respondent No.4 gave a complaint to respondent No.3.Pursuanttothesame,respondentNo'3inspectedthesiteand conducted survey and then came to a conclusion that the subject plots are earmarked as park in the layout of the then Gram Panchayat' Suraram Village. Respondent No.3 will take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955.

6. Mr. G.S. Prasen, leamed counsel for the petitioner' would contend that respondent No.3 has already issued proceedings dated

25.11.2022 stating that he has inspected the site, verified the attached layout copy which is blur and not readable and found that the space in Survey No.105 is not demarcated for park purpose, since it is a vast vacant land. T.Perusalofrecordwouldalsorevealthatthepetitionerherein has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No'22509 of 20ll alleging illegal interference by GHMC. The said Mr' N' Jitendra and Mr' N.Yugendra, who are claiming right over plot Nos'103 and 104' 4 Kl-, W.P. No.l74l of2025 admeasuring 500 square yards in Survey No.l05, also hled a writ petition vide W.P. No.8635 of 2017. Vide common order dated

24.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition along with W.P. No.22509 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein, granting liberty to them to approach Civil Court.

8. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioner herein has submitted an application dated 24.01.2016 seeking regularization of the subject plots under LRS, and the same is pending. However, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gnnted stay not to consider LRS applications.

9. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioner herein has submitted an application dated 11.12.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to accord permission for construction of building. Respondent No.3 has issued short-fall notice dated 24.01.2025. The petitioner has submitted explanation dated 06.02.2025 complying with the said short-fall. Even then, respondent No.3 is not considering the same.

10. The aforesaid facts would reveal that admittedly respondent No.3 has conducted survey without putting the petitioner, respondent - 5 KL.J w P. No.l743 0f2025 No.4 and all other interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. The said survey is behind back of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is claiming right over the subject plots under the aforesaid sale deed. The said suit O.S. No.593 of 2024 filed by the petiti.oners against respondent No.4 and others seeking perpetual injunction is pending. There is no interim injunction. 1 L The subject plots over which the petitioner is claiming right are open plots. According to respondent Nos.3 and 4, the said plots I are earmarked for the purpose of parks as per the Layout of the then Gram Panchayat, Suraram and as per sale deed bearing document No.7032 of 1999, dated 22.11.1999 executed in favour of Mr. N. Jitendra and Mr.N. Yugendra, wherein eastern boundary is shown as 'park'. Respondent No.4 association is also contending that the subject plots are earmarked for the park and the petitioner is trying to encroach the same.

12. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to conduct survey with the help of Tahsildar/Surveyor of Qutbullapur Mandal by putting the petitioner, respondent No.4 association and all interested parties on notice and t I 6 I KL.J W.P. No.l743 of2025 affording them an opportunity ofhearing. Subject to the result ofsaid survey, respondent No.3 shall take action, if any, against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 and consider the building permit application dated

11.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner and also reply dated

06.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the short-fall notice dated

24.01 .2025, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 association on notice and aftbrding them an opportunity of hearing. He shall complete the entire exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks llom the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property in all respects. Further, subject to the result of SLP, respondent No.2 shall consider the LRS application submitted by the petitioner seeking regularization of subject plots. 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 I \ To, //TRUE COPY// SDi.K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G TI N OFFI 1 2 Secretary,. Municipal Adminislration and Urban Development Ilq -P_ll"lqrj- Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. \

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-26, GHMC Gajularamaram' Qutbullapur' Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI G.PREM KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] B. Two CD CoPies BSR B u I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0710212025 I ORDER WP.No.3743 of 2025 ( g o o -o8 -1HE SIa /a 1t ttB 2m I' a A t t) a- t ,ll F'./\ CT DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \