'1 . Smt. Raheem Unnisa begum v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 more particularly in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of respondents No.2 and 3 in not preventing the illegal and unauthorised construction of building thereon being made by the Respondents 4 to 5 in premises at Plot No.391 admeasuring 450 Sq.yards out of 803 Sq.yards in Sy.No.80 situated Marthanda nagar, new Hafeezpet, Serilingampaly [t,4ardal. Ranga Reddy District, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal corporation r\cl (Act 6 0f 200g) and violative of lrrlir:les 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents lrlo Ii and 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorir,ed consiruction being made by the Respondents 4 to 5 in premises at plot Nc.3r:)l admeasuring 450 Sq.yards out of 803 Sq.yards in Sy.No.B0 situated Martharrda nagar, new Hafeezpet, Serilirrr;a mpaly Mandal. Ranga Reddy District forthwith lA NO: 't OF 202!i Petition uncer Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurnsiances stated in the affidavit filed rr support of the petition, the High court may b: p,leased to direct the Respondent l.lr-;2 and 3 to pass orders on the complaint Dater:.2i .1 .2025 and 29-1 .2025 made by rhe 2"d Petitioner and consequently to direc the Respondents 4 to 5 to stop ille;al and unauthorised construction of building c n rhe premises at Plot No.391 adm,:asuring 450 sq.yards out of 803 Sq.yards in sy.ruo.eo situated Marthanda nagar new Hafeezpet, Serilingampaly Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal cf \Vrit Petition Counsel for the F,r>titioners: SRl. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Flespondent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel for the Fi.spondent Nos.2&3: sRr G. MADHUSUDAN REDDy sc FoR Greater HyderabarJ M unicipal Corporation Counsel for the Rt:spondent Nos.4&5:-- The Court made ttre following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN II'RIT PETITI ON No.416 o oF 2025 ORDER: ' Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Madhusudarr Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 ald 3.

2. Perusal of record would reveal that petitioners have filed a srit uide O.S.No.228 of 2024 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and others seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule property therein. The said suit is pending. There are no interim orders. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are proceeding with the construction. Therefore, they have submitted representations dated

21.OI.2025 and.29.OL2O25 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to take' action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representations, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioners frled tJle present writ petition. 7

3. A,.r discussed supra, the aforesaid suit liled by the petitioners st:eking partition and separate possessron of the suit scheclul: property is pending. There are n o interim orders. Therefore, petitioners cannot submit the aforesaid represen tal ro,rs to respondent Nos.2 and 3 rvitl-r ;t t-equest to take actio r against respondent Nos.4 and 5 zn< [ file the present writ petition alleging non-consideration of the said representa -r orrs. In fact, petitioners have to obtain an order from the s;airl civil Court and then they have 1 o approach respondenl Nos,2 and 3 for the purpose of implen rentation. Instead of d oing so they have submitted th-^ a-foresaid represenl.al ions arld filed the present writ petr t: orr alleging non-considerzl ion of the said representations

4. It is relevant to note that as per Section 7(l 1) of the Telanganra Slate Building Permission Approval urd Self Certificatron .\Jrstem (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O, respordt,nt Nos.2 and 3 wil cc,n sider only the following aspects: (i) Misr-euresentation/suppression of facts. (ii) False statement, if any, made by respondent Nos.4 and 5. (iii) De'ui:tr-rr:,n in construction to the building perreil order. 3

5. In the light of the same, petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition.

6. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is grarted to the petitioners to pursue the aforesaid suit and interlocutory applications hled by them in the said suit. On obtaining order from the said civil Court, then they have to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the purpose of implementation. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall b_e no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1. One CCto SRl. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Advoc 2. One CC to SRi G. MADHUSUDAN REDDY SC FOR Greater Hyderabad loPUcl Municipal CorPoration IOPUCI

3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV 'High Telangana. [OUT] Court for the State of Two CD CoPies 4 KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1 3102t2025 / ) -{ .t SrAre ? a I .lr t() 21 rAY 2[25 v z .E .4+ t \-\ \:\ ( -\:.- s;P it cH gO ORDER WP.No.4160 of 2025 DISMISSINGi THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )4-