Ramesh Govindu v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. - a. to call for the records relating to the proceedings vide Pro. No.GI/WNP/TPS|837l2O24, dt.9-01-2025 (served 17-1-2025) directing 6 houses/open plots to remove 5 feet of their houses in internal and dead-end road ol 1970-71 layout of Ac.1.00 gts, in order to extend existing road from 20 feet to 25 feet within 15 days failing, will be demolished as per Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, behest the 3rd Respondent complaint as being arbitrary, illegal without authority of law and in violation of Article 3004 of lndian Constitution, b. consequently quash the proceedings of 2nd Respondent , I I I I I I I '\\r Pro.No.G1MNPffPSlB37l2O24, dl.9-O1-2025 thereon as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without authority of law and in violation of Article 3004 of lndian Constitution. c. 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 stay the Pro.No.Gl/VVNP/IPS/83712024, dt.9-O1-2025 on the file of 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble court Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-- The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN W.P. No.3934 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.42-2ll arrd 212, admeasuring 88.88 Sq.yds on the strength of a registered house settlement bearing document No.300 of 2017, dated dS.Ol.ZOZS. He has demolished the old house and obtained building permission and work commencement order, dated O9.O8.2O23 for construction of stilt for parking + 2 upper floors. He has completed construction. He is staying in the very same house. The sarrre was l W.P.No.3934 o12025 assessed, he has been paying property tax to respondent No.2-MunicipaJity.

3. While the matter stood thus, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice alleging that opposite Revenue Divisional Office building land at the entrance the residential portions arL- converted into commercial shops. Motor cycies are parking irregularly and in zig-zig manner, due to whicl-r residents of said area are facing difficulties for the movement and also stated that one new house is constructed with 5 feet basement and built four feet steps along with the house, thereby t1;re 20 feet road has become 12 feet. Therefore, seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. Challenging the said show cause notice, petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.o.16176 of 2024. Vide order, dated 20.12.2024, thrs Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice, respondent No.2 shall consider the same. In I W.P.No.3934 of 2025 compliance with the said order, on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, conducting enquiry, respondent No.2 has passed speaking order, dated 09.01.2025 drrecting the petitioner and adjoining the property owners of the road to remove the encroachments, restore back the road to 25 feet wide road. Fifteen (15) days time was granted to the petitioner. Cha,lienging the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petrtron.'

4. Sri Sudarshal Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations made by respondent No.3 in the complaint and in the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 are different to the contents of the speaking order. The subject property is dead end of the lane, there is no question of traffic and parking of motor vehicles etc. He has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein to the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned speaking order is illegal and without any basis. ! l .1 W.P.No.3934 of 2025

5. Whereas, Sri Putta Iftishna Reddy, learned Stalding Counsel apl)earing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that the impugned order is an appealable order. Respondent No.2 has passed the speaking order on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and on conducting hearing. There rs no error rn it.

6. The alrrresaid rival statements rvould reveal that according to the petitioner, he has not encroached into the 25 feet as alleged by respondent No.2 in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned speaking order. According to respondent No.2, petitioner and others have encroached into the 25 feet road and the said 25 feet road has become 72 feet road. In fact, the impugned speaking order was addressed to Sri D. Venkatesh Reddy. Vide impugned order, respondent No.2 has directed a,11 the adjoining property owners of the said road to remove the encroachment to restore back the road to 25 feet wide I I I ,-) I \ 5 W.P.No.3934 of 202 5 road. Thus, there are factual aspects which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition hled under 226 of tine Constitution of India. The impugned order is an appealable order. Petitioner has to prefer an appcal. It is not the case of petitioner that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Act to maintain I d the Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

7. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to preler an appeal in terms of Section 252(l) of the Act before the Regional Director/appellate authority concerned, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, challenging the speaking order, dated 09.01.2025, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner purslrant to the speaking order, dated 09.01.2025. Till then, the impugned speaking order dated 09.O1.2025 shall not be given effect. Liberty is also I J o W P.No 3934 of 2O25 granted to the petitioner to raise all the contentions which he has raised in the present writ petition and it is for the appellate authority to consider the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAY ASSISTANT REE RAR ST SECTION FFICER I To,

2. r)

4. lill#ElE{["fi",sjrHs[&13:sxHr'1?*3:]:''rnBeE:RI"* ci o a rtv', H avi ns of f i ce at - lff H T5 rll ;ix; 1i ffi:;*t'-'"'**: One CC to Sri Sudarshan Malugari' Advocate [OPUCI ji"".,rr:::,$*::r$,tln',*a'NtibanDeveropment'Highcourt #?.:"ri One CC to Sri Putta Krishna Reddy' SC[OPUCI 5 6. Two CD CoPies TJ BS t HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 210212025 ORDER c:f WP.No.393;4 of 2025 it:E 51 ,c I 03 APn 2m t1 trrcHEo i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Al YA- l{fe\-r