High Court · 2025

Late Srinivasulu, Agred about 26 years, Occ. private Late Srinivasulu, Ag,ed about 3] years, Occ. private

3. Seetha Krishna, S/o Late Srinivasulu, Aged about 33 years, Occ. private Employee

4. Seetha Vijaya, Wo Late Srinivasulu, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife All are Ri,/o H. No. 6-376, .Gajji,Sryqmy Colony, Laxma Reddy patem, Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District --501 505 - ...PETITIONERS AND 1 a 3 4 The State of.T^elangana, RgO. bV its principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Hyderabad Commissioner, Mythrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The. Bhudaan-P..ochampally Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Pochampally Village and Mandal, Bhudaan-pochampally, yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District . Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Seetha Ha.li Prqgqd, Sio Pandu, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. Pochampally^.Village and Mandal, Bhudaan-pochampally, iailadri_ t,nuvanagtn Dlstnct Karnati Educational Society, Rep. by its president, Smt. Kamati priyaka Shravan Wo Kamati Shravan fumar, nged. Major, bffice at n.ruo. +-iOlS, Phavanarushipe!. Bhoodan Pochampally, Yadadri€huvanagiri Dist: Telangana 508284 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 a writ, order or orders, rnore particularly a writ in the nature of ...RESPONDENTS Mandamus, rlecla ing the action of respondents more part cularly that of respondentN,r.2zltd3innottakinganyactionagainsttheuncffic:i:tlrespondents fromproceedingvuththeconstructionontheSubjectlandby,frat-rdulentlyandby suppressing the pr,:ndency of the suit in O'S'No'17/2016 perdilg on the file of the Honble F rinciS al District Judge, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri cris;tri:)t at Bhongir is challenged in this ryrit petition as being arbitrary, illegal, and 'iiolative of Articles 14, 1g(1) (S), 2r and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and t'onsr"quently direct the respondents rlore particularly respondent No'2 to rerroke the permission stated to hav,l bec n accorded to the unofficial respondents ir rerspect of land to an extent of itpprr:ximately Ac.14-00 guntas out of total extent l'c 25-00 guntas inSy.No.468.47tland4T3SituatedatBhudanPochampally\,illageandMandal, Yadad ri-Bhuv anarl ri District. IA NO: 10F 2025 PetitiorrUnCerSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthe<;itcurnstancesstated in the affidavit file J in support of the petition, the High Court mlty be pleased to direct the respon Jent No.2 and 3 to depute officers and stop further illegal construction rnde taken by the unofficial respondents approximz:tr:ly an extent of Ac.14.0ogurltas(utoftotalextentAc.25.00guntasoflandin{iy.No.468,470 and 473 si:uate, l 'at BhUdan Pochampally Village an.J [t/landal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri {)istri, ;t. Counsel for the P -'titioners: SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the [lespondent No.1: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No-2: SMT D'MADHAVI, SC FOft FIMDA Counsel for the l?espondent No.3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDD'Y SC FOR MCPL The Court made lhe following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAIGIIMAN WRIT PETITION No.4434 of 2o.25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 Smt. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioners, this Writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that their father late Srinivasulut has hled a suit O.S.No. 17 of 2016 agatnst respondent No.4 seeking partition and separate possession. The said suit is pending. There are no interim orders. During pendency of the said suit, / i "_[-,t ',V.P.No.4434 ot 2025 2 { resporrdent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained buiJ<lireg permit order frorr respondent No.2 by suppressin€l pendency of the s;aid suit. Therefore, they have s'tbnritted a represent.tion, dated 03.O2.2O25, to resprttld,rr:It Nos.2 and 3 wit r ir request to take action against r,:)Iipondent Nos.4 anc' 5. Despite receiving ald acknov,,le,dging the said r,:prc sentation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 d kl not act upon thc sarrre. Aggrieved by the said irra ction of responder t Nos.2 and 3, petitioners hled thr: plesent writ petitic n

4. \Vhereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learriec', Standing Countiel appearing for respondent No.3, on nstructions, would su.t,rnit that respondent Nos.4 ald 5 rair,: already obtairLed ruilding permit order, dated 09.10.it024 frorn respotrde:r t No.2 and they are proceedir.g ',vith the constr-uction strictly in accordance with thc t;ard building permit or, 1er-. There is no deviation. Pctiti<;tlers; have to seek rcvr ca tion of the building permit ort le r, dated 09.l O.2() ;z ssrled h;. rcspondenl Nc.o. KL,J W.P.No.4434 of 2025 J

5. Smt. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 will consider . the representation, dated O3.O2.2O25, submitted by the petitioners seeking revocation of the buitding permit order, dated 09. LO.2O24 obtained by respondent Nos.4 I ) and 5 by suppressing pendency of the aforesaid said suit and take action strictly in accordance with the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 ( for short 'the Act, 2OO8) by putting the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on notice and allording thern I ) an opportunity of hearing.

6. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation, dated O3.02 .2025, submitted by the petitioners, inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioners are found to be correct, he shall take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, ,:"'-L,J t V P.No.4434 o12025 4 2008, bv )utting the petitioners and respondr:nt Nos.4 and 5 on notice ald allording them an olrrror:lunity of hearing. l e shall complete the said exercise 'vithin a period of lour (4) weeks from the date of recr:ipt of a copy of this ord.r:r. No costs. As a. sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitiorr:;, if any, pendirrg in the Writ Petition shall stand clost:i SiD/. K. AMMAJI TANT REGISTRAR l //TRUE COPY// "\:,q I i \SE.CTION OFFTCER The F'rincig al Secretary, Municipal and Urban Qdve:lopmt:nt Department' Secrelariat Hyderabad, State of Telangana The Comrnissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Devt:lo:rnent Authority' MythrivanaLr r, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The comnr ssioner, Bhudaan-Pochampally Municipality, Pcrc rampally village ;il M;il,, , ahuoian-pochampally, Yidadri-Bhuvanagir D s rict One C:C to lRl VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI, Advocate [OPI'JO] One C;C to llVT D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] One ()C to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCT,L ICIPUC] Two OCs rk, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High lo rrt for the State of Telan,Sanar at Hyderabad [OUII To, 1

4. ( 6 7 Two OD C< pies o BSR GJ HIGH COUFT DATED: 141CI212025 ORDER WP.No.443,l of 2025 /-- r rr rl ;l 6+ //: |": /, .:. ii,.-- I ',.-, \-,. ) 0 4 ,tni 20ffi c) A " r'('l .','a rr -*:== )il t DISPOSIN(; OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOIJT (]OSTS )\ \0y,)-