High Court · 2025

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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in issuing demolition orders dt.06.02.2025 (received by the petitioners on o7t02t2o2s) vide proceedings Proc. No. I 7/TPSG-1//DM ct2o24 with respect to petitioners plot Nos.C.8S East part, C-85 West part and C-86 west part in Sy. Nos. S75, 576,578, 579 and 582 situated at Pragathi Nagar, Dammaiguda Municipality is illegal, arbitrary and violations of the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and consequenfly set-aside the demolition orders vide proceedings Proc. No. 17lTpsc-1//DMct2o24 Dt. o6to2l2o2s initiated by the Respondent No. 6 ragainst the Petitioners herein, in the interest o'' justice in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the demolition orders d1.06.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 6 vide proceedings Proc. No. 17[TPSG-1//DM C12024 and direct the Respondent No. 3 not to interfere into the construction work of the Petitioners over their plot Nos.{},85 East part, c-85 west Part and c-86 west F'art in sy. Nos. 575,576,578,579 and 582 situated at Pragathi Nagar, Dammaigicla IVlunicipality, in the interest of justice in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI R.DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MPCL The Court made the following: ORDER u o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAT{ WRIT PETITION No. 3927 of2o.25 ORDER: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.l, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner No.l is claiming that he is the absolute owrrer and possessor of three plot bearing Nos i.e.,C-85 East Part, admeasuring 160 Square yards (out of 335 square yards), plot bearing No.C-85 West Part, admeasuring 175 square yards (out of 335 square yards) and plot bearing No.C-85 West Part, admeasuring L75 squa.re yards (out of 335 square yards) in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 57a, 579 and 582 basing on the registered sale deed Nos.4777 of 2024, 4778 of 2024 and 4779 of 2024, all dated 24.05.2024. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner KL,J W.I'.No.3927 of 2025 ' 2 and possesisor of plot bearing No.C-86 middle part, admeasurinig 125 square yards (out of 282 sqrrare l ards) in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 57a, 579 and 5a2 basing on the registered sa.le deed Nos.4775 of 2024 and 4913 of 2024, dated 24.O5.2024 and 29.O5.2O24 respectivelv, both situated at Dammaiguda Village hamlet of Nagararn under Dammiguda Municipality, Keesara Mandal, rv'ledchal- Malkajgiri District. They have obtained three building permit orders from GHMC and they are proceeding rvith the constructiorL strictly in accordance with the said building permit orders. The construction is at basement stage. In the meanwhile, respondent No.6 has issued shorv cause notices, all ,1ated 26.11.2024 to the petitioners herein stating theit they have constructed basement and foundation re1. plot Nos.C85 and C-86 west part and C.86 middle part in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 578,579 and 582, situated at Pragathi Nagar, Dammaiguda Municipality wher':in land ln Sy.Nos.576, 578 and 579 of Dammaiguda V llage IS Government lald and the same is mentioned in the prohibited list in terms of Section 22-A of the Regtstration r r') KL,J W.P.No.3927 of 2025 J Act, 1908. Seven (71 days time was granted to the petitioners to submit their explalation. They have submitted explanation, dated 12.12.2024. Without considering the said explanation, respondent No.6 is tryrng to demolish the subject property. Therefore, petitioners have frled a writ petition vide W.P.No.358O9 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order, dated 20.12.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.6 to consider the explanatioq dated 12.72.2024 submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice, dated 26.L7.2O24 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three (3) weeks. Till then, this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, respondent No.6 has passed speaking order, dated 06.02.2025 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction. Challenging the said speaking order, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegations made by respondent No.6 in the show cause notice and in the impugned speaking order are 1 4 KL,J W Ir.No.3927 of 2025 contrary. Respondent No.6 has taken altogeth':r new ground in the speaking order, dated 06.02.2025. In the show cause notice, dated 26.11.2025, he has stated that land in Sy.Nos.576, 578 and 579 of Darnmaiguda Village is Government land and it is mentioned in the list of prohibitory in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act,

1908. Wher,3zls, in the impugned speaking order, he has stated that the petitioners are proceeding w ith the construction in Sy.No.574 of Nagaram Village. Th.erefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Whereas;, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6, on instructions, would submit that the impugned tlrder is appealable order. There are factr.ral aspects. Therefbre, the petitioners preferred an appea,l in terms of Section 252 {l) of the TelanElana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (for short 'the Act,2O19J

5. Perusal of speaking order, 06.02.2025 wolrld also reveal that respondent No.6 has also revoked the cuilding o 5 KL,J W.P.No.3927 of 2025 permit orders uide revocation order, dated 03.02 .2025, there is no challenge to the same. It is the specific case of respondent No.6 that the petitioners are proceeding with thrj construction in land in Sy.No.574 of Nagaram Village and it is a Government land. According to the petitioners, their land is in Sy.Nos . 575, 576, 578, 57g and 582. Thus, there are factual aspects which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition frled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the impugned order, dated 06.02.2025 is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (ll of the Act, 2019, the petitioners have to prefer an appeal. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the impugned order passed by respondent No.6 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Act, 2OL9 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

6. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252(11 of the Act, 2019 before the Regional Director/appellate authority concerned, within two (21 l I I I KL,J W.P.No.3927 of 2025 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this' order, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent No'6 to take action against petitioners .pursuant to the speaking order dated 06.02.2025 and revocation order, dated O3'O2'2O25' Till then, the impugned speaking order, dated 06'02'2025 shall not be gi.ven effect. There shall be no order as to costs' 6s a serluel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in tler: Writ Petition shal1 stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE FIAMA MURTHY GISTRAR A OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminiglration Development Secretariat sijilii"i;. i6,llouno,-r['lo.rabail. State of relangana ,ariat, Hyderabad, T.s, z. ihd iiiri"ipul secreiary, Revenue Department' secr J 4 4

7. 8. o '10 State of Telangana +nd?i:lll*,:"""":,yfi"x#yl'i5iieliil:1llleii5r:P'il3i",unnunu iH +;ffi;;i;hninq offi."t, irmt" oitne Dammiiguda Municrpal coi,n"Iirt r"air,"l-Malkajgiri District - 500 083 ;X;'N/ii;;m;;i commi.6ion"-r,6trit" oi tn" Dammaiguda MurLicipalitv' fr/1"O"f,it-ftl'att aigiri District - 500 083' iiXEtc' t',]'i;ni'R-.bnEenn; 5lNGH, Advocate [o.PUCl iil; dErilt#'ron lr,rtpiirjri,rl i uceAN oev, Hign court for the state 8"t"tSq: lS-f H'+iilRf. JRXE Yffi ;d.i;"cp r-oi neVe'r.ruE, nigfiCourt for the State of relangana, at Hyderabad, I'OUTI o q"' s c Fo R I\4 P c L tqP I cl = '1 1.Two CD CoPrs5 l I To PSK BS $ HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER WP.No.3927 of 2025 1L( 6c J-la, gI 2 B Ft3 2[25 DEspA.tc11 g-O t J i ( < 1 C,I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Glio W-